On the surface the poster appears to promote benign patriotism. As one person said on Twitter: “What’s wrong with being proud of your country in your country?”

But others saw it as unsettling nationalism. In recent years, right-wing conservative groups have become more vocal, advocating a move away from post-war pacifism and a revisionist take on Japan’s wartime history.

Japanese Twitter users have called the message behind the Kyoto poster “frightening” and “pathetic”, reported news portal SoraNews24.

The fact that it appeared in Kyoto, a major tourist destination, was not lost on many.
One Twitter user said the “self-styled anti-bigotry critics” who defended it were ignoring the feelings of Japanese people with foreign roots.

Another said foreign visitors might also be made to feel unwelcome, saying: “It’s a very disturbing message that the posters are transmitting.”

"Messages, Mandrake. Hidden, disturbing messages, That are not lost on many. Being transmitted to us by on-the-surface benign posters."

Who was behind the posters? At first, there was no clue. The posters state no information that identifies the publishers. But earlier this week, Huffington Post Japan reported that Jinja Honcho, the national association of Shinto shrines, had produced them. Shintoism, the indigenous religion which is an intrinsic part of Japan's cultural identity, has had a revival in recent decades which is closely linked with the nationalistic movement.

This is disturbing and literally different from benign posters by organizations unknown telling people to be proud of Israel. It's good that HuffPo is on the case.

I’m still waiting for a Japanese alt-right podcast called the Daily Showa.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

On the surface the poster appears to promote benign patriotism. As one person said on Twitter: "What's wrong with being proud of your country in your country?"

But others saw it as unsettling nationalism. In recent years, right-wing conservative groups have become more vocal, advocating a move away from post-war pacifism and a revisionist take on Japan's wartime history.

Japanese Twitter users have called the message behind the Kyoto poster "frightening" and "pathetic", reported news portal SoraNews24.

The fact that it appeared in Kyoto, a major tourist destination, was not lost on many.One Twitter user said the "self-styled anti-bigotry critics" who defended it were ignoring the feelings of Japanese people with foreign roots.

Another said foreign visitors might also be made to feel unwelcome, saying: "It's a very disturbing message that the posters are transmitting."

“Messages, Mandrake. Hidden, disturbing messages, That are not lost on many. Being transmitted to us by on-the-surface benign posters.”

Who was behind the posters? At first, there was no clue. The posters state no information that identifies the publishers. But earlier this week, Huffington Post Japan reported that Jinja Honcho, the national association of Shinto shrines, had produced them. Shintoism, the indigenous religion which is an intrinsic part of Japan’s cultural identity, has had a revival in recent decades which is closely linked with the nationalistic movement.

This is disturbing and literally different from benign posters by organizations unknown telling people to be proud of Israel. It’s good that HuffPo is on the case.

What do you say guys, do we have the best women ever?? We White men alive today must have the most charming, supportive, happy, well-balanced and downright flourishing White women who have ever trod the Earth! The current mixture of social media, mass media, consumer capitalism, feminism and university for pretty much anyone with a pulse has created a vast ocean of White goddesses. I'm not even being sarcastic.

That’s an exceedingly odd headline, even when you know the precise context. Imagine walking by a newsstand and seeing, “There is a targeted approach to this,” inside qotation marks. What? What is? Who said that?

I thought headlines were supposed to tell you something and pique your interest. My interest isn’t piqued by absolute mystery.

On the surface the poster appears to promote benign patriotism. As one person said on Twitter: "What's wrong with being proud of your country in your country?"

But others saw it as unsettling nationalism. In recent years, right-wing conservative groups have become more vocal, advocating a move away from post-war pacifism and a revisionist take on Japan's wartime history.

Japanese Twitter users have called the message behind the Kyoto poster "frightening" and "pathetic", reported news portal SoraNews24.

The fact that it appeared in Kyoto, a major tourist destination, was not lost on many.One Twitter user said the "self-styled anti-bigotry critics" who defended it were ignoring the feelings of Japanese people with foreign roots.

Another said foreign visitors might also be made to feel unwelcome, saying: "It's a very disturbing message that the posters are transmitting."

I’m still waiting for a Japanese alt-right podcast called the Daily Showa.

jim, Rhodes' accomplishments were legendary, unfortunately, they are being wiped from the slate of history. Of course, the roads, bridges and buildings that the English left behind in Africa are eroding away with his memory. Rhodes' quote would get him banned at most colleges today.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

Plenty of Asians who grew up in the US have formed an 'Asian' identity, in part from the fact that they are the smallest minority group and need 'brothers in arms', so to speak, in part because America pushes a pan-Asian identity, and in part because they are often embarassed by their parents and grandparents and feel a bit ashamed about being Chinese or Korean, etc.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines – “proud to be Irish,” etc.

I have noticed that commercials for 23 and me / Ancestry market heavily to mixed race / African Americans in particular. You have the older single Hispanic woman who is shocked to find out her Spanish ancestors were mixed with Moors or the African American young woman with freckles who learns she is 4% Scandinavian. The theme is that they fit in in many places in the world when in reality they fit in nowhere including here. What you don't see is the WASP who finds out she is really 1/2 Jewish or the father who learns what he thought were is children are actually the mailman's.

The problem is that the Irish, Italians, Germans, English, etc., are being attacked as whites. No one speaks of "cigendered, heterosexual Italian men," but of "cisgendered, heterosexual white men." Europeans are being trapped into playing a game not of their choosing, but when they play to win, they're accused of being racists. It's a no-win game -- but there no way not to play given the first line I wrote.

If I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure Native Americans that “it’s ok to be a Native American”…. I wouldn’t post my sign at the meeting room of the Vietnamese Buddhist Scout Troop of Virginia Beach (yes, it exists)….. but that ‘s just me

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

But that’s just me.

Now granted… I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people, I don't know how that would work out.

But suppose there were, and you put the signs there. What would that accomplish? The people who would go there would already think that it's OK to be white, and they would be the only ones to see them.

You seem to be missing the point. The point of the signs isn't to convince white people that it's OK to be white. It's to let them see how many other people definitely think that it's not OK to be white. The reactions they're getting are precisely the point. When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

And the great thing about this is, it's such an obvious troll. All these people would have to do is just ignore the signs. Just shut up about them and go on about their business. But they just can't. The idea that it's not OK to be white is so central to their thinking that they just can't ignore it. They can't help but prove these people's point.

I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Well, perhaps. But prior to that, how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

That's the thing about smart people. When you see dumb people having a lot of problems, it's pretty safe to assume that the reason is that they just aren't smart enough. But when you see smart people having a lot of problems, it becomes clear that the root of it is just that they're not as smart as they think they are.

Well, in the interest of accuracy then, it should be said that “I’m proud to be European” is exactly the kind of statement the mobs have the pitchforks out to impale, that is unless the context is understood to be Brexit and the like, in which case it is the only approved sentiment.

“It’s okay to be white” rankles for the same reason the inane questions from the press corps about the White House supporting slavery do – by what they imply they’re taking a stand against.

As usual though, bothsidesism breaks down in reality. There is not of course an equal balance between the not okay to be white gang on the one hand and the slavery is ok forces on the other. The first is very much with us and in our faces while the latter is almost wholly imaginary.

New update on Late Obama Age Collapse: Baltimore is more murderous than Chicago. Can anyone save the city from itself?

“But the charges brought by Mosby, including false arrest against three of the officers, sent the wrong message to police officers, says Simon: “What Mosby basically did was send a message to the Baltimore police department: ‘I’m going to put you in jail for making a bad arrest.’ So officers figured it out: ‘I can go to jail for making the wrong arrest, so I’m not getting out of my car to clear a corner,’ and that’s exactly what happened post-Freddie Gray.”

If I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure Native Americans that "it's ok to be a Native American".... I wouldn't post my sign at the meeting room of the Vietnamese Buddhist Scout Troop of Virginia Beach (yes, it exists)..... but that 's just me

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that "it's ok to be white"... I wouldn't post my sign at the Native American building.

But that's just me.

Now granted... I'm only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state.... so what do I know about strategy?

Was it the Native American building or just the building that hosts the Native American department? Also, was it just this building? Wasn’t it all around campus?

I have come to the conclusion that passing the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes. The more “rights” these minorities get, the more they complain and demand special privileges, not available to whites. When whites become a “minority” in our own country, do you think the “civil-rights” acts will benefit us? I think not…

When whites become a minority, this country is finished. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other black-run “basket cases”. This is our future…

That being said…

The term “racism” was invented by communists, and is used to destroy cultures and defuse (and render impotent) those with differing points-of-view on “racial” issues.

True “racism” is desirable as it merely cements cultural and social bonds that are necessary for a society to function and flourish.

Blacks have the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the $PLC, ACLU and ADL. These are all “racist” organizations that serve to promote the interests (and political power) of their respective races.

It is only whites who are castigated and threatened for attempting to show any signs of racial solidarity.

Let’s look at what us “evil, privileged” whites have done for Western society and the world:

1. “Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races) and do not apply to whites–only “people of color” are covered by these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” protections, (Ask “Attorney General” Loretta Lynch about that).

2. “Affirmative action” policies (that push better qualified whites out of positions and jobs that they would ordinarily qualify for) in favor of lesser-qualified minorities. In fact, “affirmative action” policies actually damage those minorities who are quite capable of “making it on their own” because they get “lumped in” with the groups that cannot make it on their own without “help”,

3. “Contract set-asides” (that are specifically targeted for minorities (that white people are prohibited from bidding on) and immigration policies (that specifically exclude whites, most of who have skills that would benefit the USA) in favor of those from the third-world (with no marketable skills).

4. Scholarships that specify particular ethnic groups are looked upon favorably by most people, save one–scholarships that are intended for whites only are looked upon as being “racist”, and therefore impermissible and improper in today’s racially-charged climate of “political correctness”.

NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites).

Whites possess an externalized altruism that no other races possesses. This externalized altruism that “looks out for the other guy” will be the demise of the white race. This altruism needs to be internalized and focused inward, just as other races have done. There is NO SHAME in looking out for one’s own kind.

“Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide.

I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965″. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…

As whites comprise only 6% of the world population, it is us whites who should be the most protected and cherished of minorities…

The late Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) of Watergate fame was something of an expert on the US Constitution. When asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he replied in effect that it would open a major can of worms that could never be closed and would lead to endless mischief. Fast forward 53 years----bingo!!!

And just as in the case of that hotel in 'Vegas depicted in "Godfather II" which was supposedly titled to Beverly Hills lawyers but was really owned by The Mob, the REAL authors of the Hart-Cellar Act were The Brothers Kennedy. What followed was a classic example of the so-called "Law of Unintended Consequences."

"If you still think you can have a dialogue or share a country with these people then you're deluded," said me.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNlLnP2VAAAue-z.jpg

What do you say guys, do we have the best women ever?? We White men alive today must have the most charming, supportive, happy, well-balanced and downright flourishing White women who have ever trod the Earth! The current mixture of social media, mass media, consumer capitalism, feminism and university for pretty much anyone with a pulse has created a vast ocean of White goddesses. I’m not even being sarcastic.

She appears to be a muslim living in Canada -- however it also looks like she has changed her account or its visibility since those tweets, which I assume are genuine: you can also find them preserved for posterity here -- her current twitter account is here.

I love how jounos treat David Simon as some kind sage on Baltimore crime issues because he wrote a TV show about crime in Baltimore. He always says the same thing, cops used to do too much and now they’re not doing enough. They should do just the right amount of cop stuff. This is what passes for deep insight these days.

If I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure Native Americans that "it's ok to be a Native American".... I wouldn't post my sign at the meeting room of the Vietnamese Buddhist Scout Troop of Virginia Beach (yes, it exists)..... but that 's just me

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that "it's ok to be white"... I wouldn't post my sign at the Native American building.

But that's just me.

Now granted... I'm only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state.... so what do I know about strategy?

I don’t think it happened like that. They just posted them around campus and voila! It’s in the “vicinity” of some Native American Studies classrooms.

My husband backed down on his plan to say, “Proud to be English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, French, Dutch, Norwegian and Finnish.” Somehow it does not slide off the tongue as easily as when I say I am “Proud to be Jewish.” No DNA test for me – I am afraid there may be a Goy in the wood pile.

If I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure Native Americans that "it's ok to be a Native American".... I wouldn't post my sign at the meeting room of the Vietnamese Buddhist Scout Troop of Virginia Beach (yes, it exists)..... but that 's just me

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that "it's ok to be white"... I wouldn't post my sign at the Native American building.

But that's just me.

Now granted... I'm only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state.... so what do I know about strategy?

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people, I don’t know how that would work out.

But suppose there were, and you put the signs there. What would that accomplish? The people who would go there would already think that it’s OK to be white, and they would be the only ones to see them.

You seem to be missing the point. The point of the signs isn’t to convince white people that it’s OK to be white. It’s to let them see how many other people definitely think that it’s not OK to be white. The reactions they’re getting are precisely the point. When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

And the great thing about this is, it’s such an obvious troll. All these people would have to do is just ignore the signs. Just shut up about them and go on about their business. But they just can’t. The idea that it’s not OK to be white is so central to their thinking that they just can’t ignore it. They can’t help but prove these people’s point.

I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Well, perhaps. But prior to that, how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

That’s the thing about smart people. When you see dumb people having a lot of problems, it’s pretty safe to assume that the reason is that they just aren’t smart enough. But when you see smart people having a lot of problems, it becomes clear that the root of it is just that they’re not as smart as they think they are.

31 anon > Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people

and what have you done to fix that?

if your strategy is to hold your breath and wait till Michelle Obama puts out a press release stating that "it's ok to be white".... then I really WILL run circles around you in collecting the cream-of-the-crop of indigenous Europeans, as immigrants to my country

32 anon > When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

for sure. Was it news to you?

And how long to you plan to spend not building anything new because you're still defining the problem?

What Hiroshima proved was: if you can ONLY separate fissile Uranium atoms from Depleted Uranium atoms at a production rate of 51%-49%..... you can STILL build the two transportable bombs it takes to give yourself another 25 years of breathing room for improving the process to 68-32.

No of course not – we are all supposed to swallow the story that whites are less vibrant, interesting and dynamic than any other race BUT are also masters at oppressing the more talented for whites’ benefit – possibly because of white supremacy, which works just like The Force.

It’s really all just a massive – and in many cases, earned – inferiority complex that ‘woke’ whites have adopted in the name of being good allies.

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.
... But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them

If you read sites like Unz.com then you should be fully aware that alt right/white nationalists do not consider jews white. It is however also liberals that think like this because when they talk about "white privilege" they never imply Soros, Zuckerberg, Weinstein, etc. Then you even have right leaning jews who think this:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-am-a-light-skinned-jew-i-am-not-white/

But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

The explanation is pretty simple, at least to me.

The alt-right is broad grouping of people who would not ordinarily be mixing. We're all here, in one big hot mess, on "those websites" because the social taboo on discussing racial and gender differences is so overwhelming that no honest discussion can be had elsewhere.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer are modernists by worldview. Some even go so far as want the socialism and everything they see around them minus the wonders of diversity that the West has imported in the last 60 years or so. They want to be atheist/agnostics, they want to not worry if cousin turns out to be a little (or a lot) loose in sexual side, they want their own sexual habits to be unencumbered, they want their weekends free, they want the government to cover them in their old age.

In their defense, they do see that modernism not working, or otherwise they won't be pro-white. They willingly address one of the worst problems to date of modernism. That is, European societies complete lack of social cohesion to the point where they invite and pay for the barbarians to live next door.

However, pro-whites won't go any farther than that in their thinking. They like the rest of modernism, so it's hard to do anything but say "Yippee for white DNA!" "Westerners are free!" "We're so advanced that we're open on the gay thing" "And have more babies!" (<--This would be the sum of Richard Spencer's thinking on the subject, a single man, as far as I can tell.)

Meanwhile, anyone who has strong religious faith (including those dreaded Jews) are having the large families. But that religious faith requires so much more than their comfortable modernism does. Modernism and Christianity are view points on the world that are inherently at odds.

So rather look, in security, to see if there's something there in that Christianity thing, all the pro-whites can do is snip at it and be little crazy themselves about it. Christianity, even executed at far less than perfection, challenges the core of who they think they are.

It's been my contention for a while that alt-whites (pro-whites) will have to move towards Christianity, even if it's merely to drop their hostility to it. Modernism sterilizes and atomizes our society. The barbarians are being let loose because 2000 years of the truths and rituals that create social cohesion are being ignored or angrily rejected in the name of comfort and ego.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

I have noticed that commercials for 23 and me / Ancestry market heavily to mixed race / African Americans in particular. You have the older single Hispanic woman who is shocked to find out her Spanish ancestors were mixed with Moors or the African American young woman with freckles who learns she is 4% Scandinavian. The theme is that they fit in in many places in the world when in reality they fit in nowhere including here. What you don’t see is the WASP who finds out she is really 1/2 Jewish or the father who learns what he thought were is children are actually the mailman’s.

Is it okay to be White and be producing more than a replacement level of offspring? Not at Unz.com.

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.

I get that people who are anti-White wouldn't like them. But I don't get that people who are pro-white aren't crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.
… But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them

If you read sites like Unz.com then you should be fully aware that alt right/white nationalists do not consider jews white. It is however also liberals that think like this because when they talk about “white privilege” they never imply Soros, Zuckerberg, Weinstein, etc. Then you even have right leaning jews who think this:

What do you say guys, do we have the best women ever?? We White men alive today must have the most charming, supportive, happy, well-balanced and downright flourishing White women who have ever trod the Earth! The current mixture of social media, mass media, consumer capitalism, feminism and university for pretty much anyone with a pulse has created a vast ocean of White goddesses. I'm not even being sarcastic.

She appears to be a muslim living in Canada — however it also looks like she has changed her account or its visibility since those tweets, which I assume are genuine: you can also find them preserved for posterity here — her current twitter account is here.

New update on Late Obama Age Collapse: Baltimore is more murderous than Chicago. Can anyone save the city from itself?

"But the charges brought by Mosby, including false arrest against three of the officers, sent the wrong message to police officers, says Simon: “What Mosby basically did was send a message to the Baltimore police department: ‘I’m going to put you in jail for making a bad arrest.’ So officers figured it out: ‘I can go to jail for making the wrong arrest, so I’m not getting out of my car to clear a corner,’ and that’s exactly what happened post-Freddie Gray.”

Greater Chicago has three zones. One consists of of the general run of suburban township. A second consists of some inner ring suburbs and the more congenial areas of the city. The third consists of four islands: a block of neighborhoods on the South Side with 600,000 people resident, a bloc on the west side with 350,000 people resident, Gary and East Chicago (population sums to 109,000), and the town of Harvey, Illinois (pop 25,000). Zone A has crime rates recognizable to rural and small town dwellers (and encompasses about 2/3 of the total). Zone B (encompassing shy of a quarter of the total) is not low crime (homicide rates 5.6 per 100,000). It just resembles Zone A more than it does Zone C.

The morning after Donald Trump won the election, breakfast tasted better than it had in years. It was unseasonably warm for November, and I was seated at an outside table at a Brooklyn restaurant as a woman stomped by on the sidewalk in her business shoes, sobbing on the phone about the regime of rape camps and torture rooms and forced clitoridectomies she was certain the Trumpenreich would herald.

“HA HA HA!” I shouted at her. “CRY! CRY! CRY!” When I returned to eating my omelet, it tasted better than ever.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

Dude, calm down.

I could very easily have written “proud to be Mexican” or “proud to be Chinese” to make the same point.

And that point is the mammoth anti-white double standard.

Anyway, experience has taught me that when someone invokes “Stormfront,” he’s not really trying to debate anything; he’s just obstructionist trying to muddy the waters.

Don't "dude" me. I am not your pal. And I was - and am - calm. Did you see any boldfaces or exclamation mark in my previous comment? Don't use a cheap trick to make someone you disagree with sound like he is excitable or unhinged.

I could very easily have written “proud to be Mexican” or “proud to be Chinese” to make the same point.

But "proud to be Irish" or "proud to be Italian" would not make the same point, eh?

And that point is the mammoth anti-white double standard.

You get no argument from that that the mainstream media drips with anti-white sentiments (often by "good" whites). But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

Indeed, he and others might argue - plausibly - that whites are at the bottom of the mainstream ethno-morality scale, but that's not even completely true either. When you watch a film such as "Akeelah and the Bee," you can see the ethnic hierarchy of goodness in the mainstream media clearly - black girl is the heroine (with an old, wise black male mentor), the Hispanic male is the harmless, cheerful sidekick, whites run everything, including the Spelling Bee (they are the "system," I guess), the mixed white-Asian boy is the (cheating) antagonist, and the biggest villain is the overbearing, over-pressuring Asian dad (there is even a moral hierarchy within the "Asian" category in the film - when the TV viewers condemn the Asian boy, an Asian viewer chimes in and says "That kid is KOREAN! I am Chinese."

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.
... But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them

If you read sites like Unz.com then you should be fully aware that alt right/white nationalists do not consider jews white. It is however also liberals that think like this because when they talk about "white privilege" they never imply Soros, Zuckerberg, Weinstein, etc. Then you even have right leaning jews who think this:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-am-a-light-skinned-jew-i-am-not-white/

And Mormons? Romney has had more children by his Multiple Sclerosis-affected one wife than Trump has had by his 3.

It's not exactly a mystery why. Mormons are fully on-board with the globalist, anti-white agenda. They may have lots of babies, but their "values" shtick is thin cover for just another power- and wealth-mad tribe on the make. Jeff Flake is one obvious and egregious example of the type. Most "notable" Mormons are vile.

“Whitey Tasks” for when a “white person asks to help” fight “white supremacy” at Reed College and support the current “persons of color” take-over of administrative offices at Reed College (Portland, Oregon).

And Mormons? Romney has had more children by his Multiple Sclerosis-affected one wife than Trump has had by his 3.

Naturally WN's prefer Trump.

I can't think of a single notable Mormon that WN's like.

I can’t think of a single notable Mormon that WN’s like.

It’s not exactly a mystery why. Mormons are fully on-board with the globalist, anti-white agenda. They may have lots of babies, but their “values” shtick is thin cover for just another power- and wealth-mad tribe on the make. Jeff Flake is one obvious and egregious example of the type. Most “notable” Mormons are vile.

Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.

Cecil Rhodes

jim, Rhodes’ accomplishments were legendary, unfortunately, they are being wiped from the slate of history. Of course, the roads, bridges and buildings that the English left behind in Africa are eroding away with his memory. Rhodes’ quote would get him banned at most colleges today.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

New update on Late Obama Age Collapse: Baltimore is more murderous than Chicago. Can anyone save the city from itself?

"But the charges brought by Mosby, including false arrest against three of the officers, sent the wrong message to police officers, says Simon: “What Mosby basically did was send a message to the Baltimore police department: ‘I’m going to put you in jail for making a bad arrest.’ So officers figured it out: ‘I can go to jail for making the wrong arrest, so I’m not getting out of my car to clear a corner,’ and that’s exactly what happened post-Freddie Gray.”

The morning after Donald Trump won the election, breakfast tasted better than it had in years. It was unseasonably warm for November, and I was seated at an outside table at a Brooklyn restaurant as a woman stomped by on the sidewalk in her business shoes, sobbing on the phone about the regime of rape camps and torture rooms and forced clitoridectomies she was certain the Trumpenreich would herald.

“HA HA HA!” I shouted at her. “CRY! CRY! CRY!” When I returned to eating my omelet, it tasted better than ever.

I have noticed that commercials for 23 and me / Ancestry market heavily to mixed race / African Americans in particular. You have the older single Hispanic woman who is shocked to find out her Spanish ancestors were mixed with Moors or the African American young woman with freckles who learns she is 4% Scandinavian. The theme is that they fit in in many places in the world when in reality they fit in nowhere including here. What you don't see is the WASP who finds out she is really 1/2 Jewish or the father who learns what he thought were is children are actually the mailman's.

I’ve thought about getting a test done, but all my known ancestors are from Europe, so what would it really tell me?

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.
... But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them

If you read sites like Unz.com then you should be fully aware that alt right/white nationalists do not consider jews white. It is however also liberals that think like this because when they talk about "white privilege" they never imply Soros, Zuckerberg, Weinstein, etc. Then you even have right leaning jews who think this:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-am-a-light-skinned-jew-i-am-not-white/

Of course Jews are white. Lots of them have blue eyes and pale skin. The Nazis made them wear yellow stars since they couldn’t tell the difference by looking at them.

For some reason, Steve is deliberately ignoring the context of this, which he wouldn’t in other circumstances. Obviously this wasn’t just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the “Faculty of Native Studies” because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something. It’s propaganda, in the neutral, technical sense of the term as opposed to the colloquial sense, and it employs the rhetorical device of understatement. The understatement here, both in the language of the statement and in the location it was posted, is meant for emphasis and irony. A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

Two points: one, there's no white studies departments, so there's no equivalent for where aggressive black statements could be posted.

More importantly, this isn't a covert "whites are superior" message, as it probably would be with blacks. (Black Lives Matter means black lives matter more.) What you've got here is a brilliant troll. They know leftists will take it as aggression, but it's superficially innocuous enough to make them look foolish for doing so. That turns normies on to their anti-white animus.

Plenty of leftists realize this, undoubtedly. They're onto our multiple-step strategies. But they can't help themselves. They know the point is about their reaction, but must go through with denouncing the note as if it were racist. Because they know in their minds we're racists, and that's wrong. We're just wrong, dangit, and they must call us racists, despite the fact that in so doing they reveal their own racism.

Obviously this wasn’t just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the “Faculty of Native Studies” because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something.

It's my understanding that more than one flier was posted and that one of them happened to be within the vicinity of the native studies faculty.

But if it did happen as you say, then I'll partly grant your following point:

A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

How it's interpreted depends entirely on the general "racial atmosphere" of a given society. Today, with all the acceptance and promotion that pro-black - even "black power" - attitudes receive, I think it would be seen as an aggressive move aimed to assert dominance - perhaps not immediately, because the language is so subdued, but on reflection, that would be a likely interpretation.

In today's world, however, in which positive white self-regard is condemned at every turn, a deliberate and unambiguous posting of this message at the faculty of native studies could hardly be interpreted as a "dominance display" (except in the minds of deranged sjw's, for whom everything is "white supremacy"). It is best interpreted as a meek reminder that whites have feelings too.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

“I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S.”

But, if they did, would anybody mind? Would anybody consider it “racist?” No. That’s the point.

But, if they did, would anybody mind? Would anybody consider it “racist?” No. That’s the point.

For starters, *I* would mind. It's not even "racist" ("Asian" not being a race, it would be more like "continentalist"), but it IS patently stupid.

And most people probably don't mind, because Asians are still only 5% or so of the population. Outside big cities they are still quite rare and usually well-assimilated. In my area, where Asians are about 15%, some wannabe-black Asians who go about screaming "Asian Pride!" would be looked as either ridiculous or stupidly ethnocentric.

My point is, Asian ethno-centrism would most certainly raise eyebrows and encounter hostility from others if and where Asians from a significant fraction of the population.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

Chicago is relatively low crime if you stay in the white areas, which is pretty easy to do.

Greater Chicago has three zones. One consists of of the general run of suburban township. A second consists of some inner ring suburbs and the more congenial areas of the city. The third consists of four islands: a block of neighborhoods on the South Side with 600,000 people resident, a bloc on the west side with 350,000 people resident, Gary and East Chicago (population sums to 109,000), and the town of Harvey, Illinois (pop 25,000). Zone A has crime rates recognizable to rural and small town dwellers (and encompasses about 2/3 of the total). Zone B (encompassing shy of a quarter of the total) is not low crime (homicide rates 5.6 per 100,000). It just resembles Zone A more than it does Zone C.

Is it okay to be White and be producing more than a replacement level of offspring? Not at Unz.com.

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, quiverful Christians.

I get that people who are anti-White wouldn't like them. But I don't get that people who are pro-white aren't crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

The explanation is pretty simple, at least to me.

The alt-right is broad grouping of people who would not ordinarily be mixing. We’re all here, in one big hot mess, on “those websites” because the social taboo on discussing racial and gender differences is so overwhelming that no honest discussion can be had elsewhere.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer are modernists by worldview. Some even go so far as want the socialism and everything they see around them minus the wonders of diversity that the West has imported in the last 60 years or so. They want to be atheist/agnostics, they want to not worry if cousin turns out to be a little (or a lot) loose in sexual side, they want their own sexual habits to be unencumbered, they want their weekends free, they want the government to cover them in their old age.

In their defense, they do see that modernism not working, or otherwise they won’t be pro-white. They willingly address one of the worst problems to date of modernism. That is, European societies complete lack of social cohesion to the point where they invite and pay for the barbarians to live next door.

However, pro-whites won’t go any farther than that in their thinking. They like the rest of modernism, so it’s hard to do anything but say “Yippee for white DNA!” “Westerners are free!” “We’re so advanced that we’re open on the gay thing” “And have more babies!” (<–This would be the sum of Richard Spencer's thinking on the subject, a single man, as far as I can tell.)

Meanwhile, anyone who has strong religious faith (including those dreaded Jews) are having the large families. But that religious faith requires so much more than their comfortable modernism does. Modernism and Christianity are view points on the world that are inherently at odds.

So rather look, in security, to see if there's something there in that Christianity thing, all the pro-whites can do is snip at it and be little crazy themselves about it. Christianity, even executed at far less than perfection, challenges the core of who they think they are.

It's been my contention for a while that alt-whites (pro-whites) will have to move towards Christianity, even if it's merely to drop their hostility to it. Modernism sterilizes and atomizes our society. The barbarians are being let loose because 2000 years of the truths and rituals that create social cohesion are being ignored or angrily rejected in the name of comfort and ego.

I've done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom - of the two - you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

Turn-the-other-cheekism ruined my life and I've looked close enough at Christianity, as a Methodist minister's son to reject it for good as the Hebrew End Times delusion cult it began as. (Then again I am only a moderate in terms of white identity politics. Very very moderate. I wouldn't call myself a WN.)

I love how jounos treat David Simon as some kind sage on Baltimore crime issues because he wrote a TV show about crime in Baltimore. He always says the same thing, cops used to do too much and now they're not doing enough. They should do just the right amount of cop stuff. This is what passes for deep insight these days.

Simon worked as a police reporter at The Baltimore Sun from 1982 to 1995.

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people, I don't know how that would work out.

But suppose there were, and you put the signs there. What would that accomplish? The people who would go there would already think that it's OK to be white, and they would be the only ones to see them.

You seem to be missing the point. The point of the signs isn't to convince white people that it's OK to be white. It's to let them see how many other people definitely think that it's not OK to be white. The reactions they're getting are precisely the point. When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

And the great thing about this is, it's such an obvious troll. All these people would have to do is just ignore the signs. Just shut up about them and go on about their business. But they just can't. The idea that it's not OK to be white is so central to their thinking that they just can't ignore it. They can't help but prove these people's point.

I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Well, perhaps. But prior to that, how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

That's the thing about smart people. When you see dumb people having a lot of problems, it's pretty safe to assume that the reason is that they just aren't smart enough. But when you see smart people having a lot of problems, it becomes clear that the root of it is just that they're not as smart as they think they are.

31 anon > Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people

and what have you done to fix that?

if your strategy is to hold your breath and wait till Michelle Obama puts out a press release stating that “it’s ok to be white”…. then I really WILL run circles around you in collecting the cream-of-the-crop of indigenous Europeans, as immigrants to my country

Broken onto a college campus with a construction crew and building materials and built one, obviously.
if your strategy is to hold your breath and wait till Michelle Obama puts out a press release stating that “it’s ok to be white”….

But clearly that WASN'T the strategy, or else you wouldn't be reading this article now, would you?
then I really WILL run circles around you in collecting the cream-of-the-crop of indigenous Europeans, as immigrants to my country

Will you? Good. I hope so. Maybe then you could quit living on our handouts.

jim, Rhodes' accomplishments were legendary, unfortunately, they are being wiped from the slate of history. Of course, the roads, bridges and buildings that the English left behind in Africa are eroding away with his memory. Rhodes' quote would get him banned at most colleges today.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true “invade the world, invite the world” Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a “subject race” and ensured their self-determination would be decided by “the first race in the world”.

“It must be brought home to them”, Rhodes said, “that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better”. He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket.

Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.

Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive. Nor are they useful if you want shape stone tools or do anything practical. While they top the hardness scale, they cleave easily. Any sort of pressure and they break. (My Mother's diamond chipped under normal domestic conditions.) And interestingly, they also burn in normal temperatures in a flame with an oxidizer or just extra oxygen. You end up with graphite. So fragile too because they're unstable.

In the end, I'd say the Africans locally got the better deal. Diamonds are interesting, but they're sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920's. In terms of a resource, it's not like they losing oil or something. It was good deal for them, really. The West was kind of the dope on that one.

Muhammad was much more flawed than Rhodes. But you don't hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic (in the dictionary sense - of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer. In fact, progressives seem to love Muslims, to the point of wanting tens of thousands more of them in this country, if recent decisions of the various Obama judges are any indication.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

To proffer Stormfront as some sort of socially acceptable or even accorded free speech rights/courtesies (in the current year) forum for White pride is disingenuous on your part at best.

One has to WORK to even find it on the web because of cybermaster persecution.

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people, I don't know how that would work out.

But suppose there were, and you put the signs there. What would that accomplish? The people who would go there would already think that it's OK to be white, and they would be the only ones to see them.

You seem to be missing the point. The point of the signs isn't to convince white people that it's OK to be white. It's to let them see how many other people definitely think that it's not OK to be white. The reactions they're getting are precisely the point. When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

And the great thing about this is, it's such an obvious troll. All these people would have to do is just ignore the signs. Just shut up about them and go on about their business. But they just can't. The idea that it's not OK to be white is so central to their thinking that they just can't ignore it. They can't help but prove these people's point.

I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Well, perhaps. But prior to that, how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

That's the thing about smart people. When you see dumb people having a lot of problems, it's pretty safe to assume that the reason is that they just aren't smart enough. But when you see smart people having a lot of problems, it becomes clear that the root of it is just that they're not as smart as they think they are.

32 Anon > how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

less than you imagine. And none that didn’t eventually decide that – it hadn’t done them any good.

White people got kicked out of several African countries. Did that prove that white people are the problem?

I could very easily have written "proud to be Mexican" or "proud to be Chinese" to make the same point.

And that point is the mammoth anti-white double standard.

Anyway, experience has taught me that when someone invokes "Stormfront," he's not really trying to debate anything; he's just obstructionist trying to muddy the waters.

Dude, calm down.

Don’t “dude” me. I am not your pal. And I was – and am – calm. Did you see any boldfaces or exclamation mark in my previous comment? Don’t use a cheap trick to make someone you disagree with sound like he is excitable or unhinged.

I could very easily have written “proud to be Mexican” or “proud to be Chinese” to make the same point.

But “proud to be Irish” or “proud to be Italian” would not make the same point, eh?

And that point is the mammoth anti-white double standard.

You get no argument from that that the mainstream media drips with anti-white sentiments (often by “good” whites). But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

Indeed, he and others might argue – plausibly – that whites are at the bottom of the mainstream ethno-morality scale, but that’s not even completely true either. When you watch a film such as “Akeelah and the Bee,” you can see the ethnic hierarchy of goodness in the mainstream media clearly – black girl is the heroine (with an old, wise black male mentor), the Hispanic male is the harmless, cheerful sidekick, whites run everything, including the Spelling Bee (they are the “system,” I guess), the mixed white-Asian boy is the (cheating) antagonist, and the biggest villain is the overbearing, over-pressuring Asian dad (there is even a moral hierarchy within the “Asian” category in the film – when the TV viewers condemn the Asian boy, an Asian viewer chimes in and says “That kid is KOREAN! I am Chinese.”

As was explained to you, whites are being attacked as whites. Simple as that.

But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

"Patently false." Lol okay. Just compare the few examples of non-whites being condemned for ethnocentrism to the extent and intensity with which whites are condemned for it to understand how stupid you sound.

But perhaps you're not even stupid; maybe you're simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

The problem is that the Irish, Italians, Germans, English, etc., are being attacked as whites. No one speaks of “cigendered, heterosexual Italian men,” but of “cisgendered, heterosexual white men.” Europeans are being trapped into playing a game not of their choosing, but when they play to win, they’re accused of being racists. It’s a no-win game — but there no way not to play given the first line I wrote.

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that “it’s ok to be white”… I wouldn’t post my sign at the Native American building.

Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people, I don't know how that would work out.

But suppose there were, and you put the signs there. What would that accomplish? The people who would go there would already think that it's OK to be white, and they would be the only ones to see them.

You seem to be missing the point. The point of the signs isn't to convince white people that it's OK to be white. It's to let them see how many other people definitely think that it's not OK to be white. The reactions they're getting are precisely the point. When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

And the great thing about this is, it's such an obvious troll. All these people would have to do is just ignore the signs. Just shut up about them and go on about their business. But they just can't. The idea that it's not OK to be white is so central to their thinking that they just can't ignore it. They can't help but prove these people's point.

I’m only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state…. so what do I know about strategy?

Well, perhaps. But prior to that, how many countries did you manage to get yourselves kicked out of over the years?

That's the thing about smart people. When you see dumb people having a lot of problems, it's pretty safe to assume that the reason is that they just aren't smart enough. But when you see smart people having a lot of problems, it becomes clear that the root of it is just that they're not as smart as they think they are.

32 anon > When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

for sure. Was it news to you?

And how long to you plan to spend not building anything new because you’re still defining the problem?

What Hiroshima proved was: if you can ONLY separate fissile Uranium atoms from Depleted Uranium atoms at a production rate of 51%-49%….. you can STILL build the two transportable bombs it takes to give yourself another 25 years of breathing room for improving the process to 68-32.

But, if they did, would anybody mind? Would anybody consider it "racist?" No. That's the point.

But, if they did, would anybody mind? Would anybody consider it “racist?” No. That’s the point.

For starters, *I* would mind. It’s not even “racist” (“Asian” not being a race, it would be more like “continentalist”), but it IS patently stupid.

And most people probably don’t mind, because Asians are still only 5% or so of the population. Outside big cities they are still quite rare and usually well-assimilated. In my area, where Asians are about 15%, some wannabe-black Asians who go about screaming “Asian Pride!” would be looked as either ridiculous or stupidly ethnocentric.

My point is, Asian ethno-centrism would most certainly raise eyebrows and encounter hostility from others if and where Asians from a significant fraction of the population.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying.

Right...the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

No double standard here to see at all.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don’t disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask “Is it okay to be white” is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

Right. Because Muslims can kill multiple people with rental trucks and we're treated to: #NotAllMuslims. One white guy, who may or may not have been a white supremacist, kills 1 girl, possibly on accident, and suddenly Stormfront is gone?

Killing Jews is actually in/supported by the Islamic theology, unlike Stormfront which will just bore to readers to death with Jewish Conspiracy theory #3,455,112 . But Muslims too can host their websites on Go Daddy because we all know that killing people with cars/vehicles just the work of one lone crazy person and has nothing to do with the ideology. How very enlightened of us.

Must have missed that. I do recall a motorist at a political rally who was attacked in his car by communists, and who tried to drive to safety despite being trapped by other communists unlawfully blocking the road. I think there was also a communist female in the vicinity who had a heart attack.

to claim that the worst of whites only ask “Is it okay to be white” is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

And the commenters claiming this are who again?

I get your idea that loudly claiming to be a "proud White* person" would be every bit as fatuous as claiming to be a "proud Asian person", which is pretty fatuous. But, really, that isn't or at least wasn't the issue under discussion here.

Blacks tend to proclaim “pride” in their race, because that is how they are conditioned socially in the United States (actual Africans tend to identify by nation or tribe). And most don’t really know their origin in any case.

Although I’m sure a few black-sympatico types may say it, I’ve never heard a normal Asian utter such a thing in the U.S., largely because, as you point out, they tend to identify with their ethnic origin, rather than a nebulous catchall category that has been advanced by “activists” and largely rejected by orindary people. Even “Hispanic” has at least linguistic commonality.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying. And much like Asians, whites who tend to evince ethnic pride in public do so along similar lines - “proud to be Irish,” etc.

As for lack of “white pride,” perhaps a visit to Stormfront may prove to be edifying.

In what way would a virtual “visit” to a bunch of superannuated teens in Halloween costumes celebrating their sex-pervert hero in their mothers’ basements be “edifying”?

But, if they did, would anybody mind? Would anybody consider it “racist?” No. That’s the point.

For starters, *I* would mind. It's not even "racist" ("Asian" not being a race, it would be more like "continentalist"), but it IS patently stupid.

And most people probably don't mind, because Asians are still only 5% or so of the population. Outside big cities they are still quite rare and usually well-assimilated. In my area, where Asians are about 15%, some wannabe-black Asians who go about screaming "Asian Pride!" would be looked as either ridiculous or stupidly ethnocentric.

My point is, Asian ethno-centrism would most certainly raise eyebrows and encounter hostility from others if and where Asians from a significant fraction of the population.

It’s not even “racist” (“Asian” not being a race, it would be more like “continentalist”), but it IS patently stupid.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

Indeed, legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C19US6rqqAo

.

I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket.

Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.

Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive. Nor are they useful if you want shape stone tools or do anything practical. While they top the hardness scale, they cleave easily. Any sort of pressure and they break. (My Mother’s diamond chipped under normal domestic conditions.) And interestingly, they also burn in normal temperatures in a flame with an oxidizer or just extra oxygen. You end up with graphite. So fragile too because they’re unstable.

In the end, I’d say the Africans locally got the better deal. Diamonds are interesting, but they’re sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920′s. In terms of a resource, it’s not like they losing oil or something. It was good deal for them, really. The West was kind of the dope on that one.

No one talks about the fact that GE was making artificial diamonds in the 1950s and somehow that just vanished into the memory hole. Some very impressive gem quality stones were displayed. I'd like to know how DeBeers got that quashed.

The problem is that the Irish, Italians, Germans, English, etc., are being attacked as whites. No one speaks of "cigendered, heterosexual Italian men," but of "cisgendered, heterosexual white men." Europeans are being trapped into playing a game not of their choosing, but when they play to win, they're accused of being racists. It's a no-win game -- but there no way not to play given the first line I wrote.

Europeans are being trapped

…by other “Europeans”

into playing a game not of their choosing, but when they play to win, they’re accused of being racists…

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

Right. Because Muslims can kill multiple people with rental trucks and we’re treated to: #NotAllMuslims. One white guy, who may or may not have been a white supremacist, kills 1 girl, possibly on accident, and suddenly Stormfront is gone?

Killing Jews is actually in/supported by the Islamic theology, unlike Stormfront which will just bore to readers to death with Jewish Conspiracy theory #3,455,112 . But Muslims too can host their websites on Go Daddy because we all know that killing people with cars/vehicles just the work of one lone crazy person and has nothing to do with the ideology. How very enlightened of us.

Right. Because Muslims can kill multiple people with rental trucks and we’re treated to: #NotAllMuslims. One white guy, who may or may not have been a white supremacist, kills 1 girl, possibly on accident, and suddenly Stormfront is gone?

1. You need to work on your analogies: James Alex Fields to Stormfront =/ Sayfullo Saipov to Islam.

And I write that as someone who worked in counter-terrorism and as an obedient Catholic whose view of Islam is not exactly, shall we say, positive.

2. "Alcohol is so much worse than Cannabis!" is not a good argument for legalizing the latter; it's a good argument for banning the former.

But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

The explanation is pretty simple, at least to me.

The alt-right is broad grouping of people who would not ordinarily be mixing. We're all here, in one big hot mess, on "those websites" because the social taboo on discussing racial and gender differences is so overwhelming that no honest discussion can be had elsewhere.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer are modernists by worldview. Some even go so far as want the socialism and everything they see around them minus the wonders of diversity that the West has imported in the last 60 years or so. They want to be atheist/agnostics, they want to not worry if cousin turns out to be a little (or a lot) loose in sexual side, they want their own sexual habits to be unencumbered, they want their weekends free, they want the government to cover them in their old age.

In their defense, they do see that modernism not working, or otherwise they won't be pro-white. They willingly address one of the worst problems to date of modernism. That is, European societies complete lack of social cohesion to the point where they invite and pay for the barbarians to live next door.

However, pro-whites won't go any farther than that in their thinking. They like the rest of modernism, so it's hard to do anything but say "Yippee for white DNA!" "Westerners are free!" "We're so advanced that we're open on the gay thing" "And have more babies!" (<--This would be the sum of Richard Spencer's thinking on the subject, a single man, as far as I can tell.)

Meanwhile, anyone who has strong religious faith (including those dreaded Jews) are having the large families. But that religious faith requires so much more than their comfortable modernism does. Modernism and Christianity are view points on the world that are inherently at odds.

So rather look, in security, to see if there's something there in that Christianity thing, all the pro-whites can do is snip at it and be little crazy themselves about it. Christianity, even executed at far less than perfection, challenges the core of who they think they are.

It's been my contention for a while that alt-whites (pro-whites) will have to move towards Christianity, even if it's merely to drop their hostility to it. Modernism sterilizes and atomizes our society. The barbarians are being let loose because 2000 years of the truths and rituals that create social cohesion are being ignored or angrily rejected in the name of comfort and ego.

Lots of Christians and least pro-Christians on the alt-right team as far as I can tell. It’s far from monolithic.

Lots of Christians and least pro-Christians on the alt-right team as far as I can tell. It’s far from monolithic.

Yes, I agree. I was more explaining the alt-white (pro-white) atheist group, which is a very distinct sub-group. They are marked by an open (occasionally closeted) hostility to Christianity and almost completely reliance on HBD theories as both the cause of problems and their solutions. They also tend to be a bit louder than other subgroups.

I'm a Catholic and in general very sympathetic to alt-right discussions.

That's why I said we're kind of hot mess right now. It seems a bit of an unnatural type of alliance. :)

Lots of Christians and least pro-Christians on the alt-right team as far as I can tell. It's far from monolithic.

Lots of Christians and least pro-Christians on the alt-right team as far as I can tell. It’s far from monolithic.

Yes, I agree. I was more explaining the alt-white (pro-white) atheist group, which is a very distinct sub-group. They are marked by an open (occasionally closeted) hostility to Christianity and almost completely reliance on HBD theories as both the cause of problems and their solutions. They also tend to be a bit louder than other subgroups.

I’m a Catholic and in general very sympathetic to alt-right discussions.

That’s why I said we’re kind of hot mess right now. It seems a bit of an unnatural type of alliance.

Don't "dude" me. I am not your pal. And I was - and am - calm. Did you see any boldfaces or exclamation mark in my previous comment? Don't use a cheap trick to make someone you disagree with sound like he is excitable or unhinged.

I could very easily have written “proud to be Mexican” or “proud to be Chinese” to make the same point.

But "proud to be Irish" or "proud to be Italian" would not make the same point, eh?

And that point is the mammoth anti-white double standard.

You get no argument from that that the mainstream media drips with anti-white sentiments (often by "good" whites). But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

Indeed, he and others might argue - plausibly - that whites are at the bottom of the mainstream ethno-morality scale, but that's not even completely true either. When you watch a film such as "Akeelah and the Bee," you can see the ethnic hierarchy of goodness in the mainstream media clearly - black girl is the heroine (with an old, wise black male mentor), the Hispanic male is the harmless, cheerful sidekick, whites run everything, including the Spelling Bee (they are the "system," I guess), the mixed white-Asian boy is the (cheating) antagonist, and the biggest villain is the overbearing, over-pressuring Asian dad (there is even a moral hierarchy within the "Asian" category in the film - when the TV viewers condemn the Asian boy, an Asian viewer chimes in and says "That kid is KOREAN! I am Chinese."

As was explained to you, whites are being attacked as whites. Simple as that.

But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

“Patently false.” Lol okay. Just compare the few examples of non-whites being condemned for ethnocentrism to the extent and intensity with which whites are condemned for it to understand how stupid you sound.

But perhaps you’re not even stupid; maybe you’re simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

I have come to the conclusion that passing the so-called "civil-rights" acts were mistakes. The more "rights" these minorities get, the more they complain and demand special privileges, not available to whites. When whites become a "minority" in our own country, do you think the "civil-rights" acts will benefit us? I think not...

When whites become a minority, this country is finished. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other black-run "basket cases". This is our future...

That being said...

The term "racism" was invented by communists, and is used to destroy cultures and defuse (and render impotent) those with differing points-of-view on "racial" issues.

True "racism" is desirable as it merely cements cultural and social bonds that are necessary for a society to function and flourish.

Blacks have the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the $PLC, ACLU and ADL. These are all "racist" organizations that serve to promote the interests (and political power) of their respective races.

It is only whites who are castigated and threatened for attempting to show any signs of racial solidarity.

Let's look at what us "evil, privileged" whites have done for Western society and the world:

1. "Civil-rights (for some)" laws (that effectively destroy "freedom of association" for whites, but not for other races) and do not apply to whites--only "people of color" are covered by these so-called "civil-rights (for some)" protections, (Ask "Attorney General" Loretta Lynch about that).

2. "Affirmative action" policies (that push better qualified whites out of positions and jobs that they would ordinarily qualify for) in favor of lesser-qualified minorities. In fact, "affirmative action" policies actually damage those minorities who are quite capable of "making it on their own" because they get "lumped in" with the groups that cannot make it on their own without "help",

3. "Contract set-asides" (that are specifically targeted for minorities (that white people are prohibited from bidding on) and immigration policies (that specifically exclude whites, most of who have skills that would benefit the USA) in favor of those from the third-world (with no marketable skills).

4. Scholarships that specify particular ethnic groups are looked upon favorably by most people, save one--scholarships that are intended for whites only are looked upon as being "racist", and therefore impermissible and improper in today's racially-charged climate of "political correctness".

NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a "fair shake" in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of "our own kind" (whites).

Whites possess an externalized altruism that no other races possesses. This externalized altruism that "looks out for the other guy" will be the demise of the white race. This altruism needs to be internalized and focused inward, just as other races have done. There is NO SHAME in looking out for one's own kind.

"Multiculturalism" and "diversity" are code-words for white genocide.

I blame those of the "greatest generation" for selling out our birthright with the passage of the "Civil-Rights Acts" of 1957 and 1964, and the "Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965". To those of the "greatest generation" (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING...

As whites comprise only 6% of the world population, it is us whites who should be the most protected and cherished of minorities...

The late Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) of Watergate fame was something of an expert on the US Constitution. When asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he replied in effect that it would open a major can of worms that could never be closed and would lead to endless mischief. Fast forward 53 years—-bingo!!!

And just as in the case of that hotel in ‘Vegas depicted in “Godfather II” which was supposedly titled to Beverly Hills lawyers but was really owned by The Mob, the REAL authors of the Hart-Cellar Act were The Brothers Kennedy. What followed was a classic example of the so-called “Law of Unintended Consequences.”

She appears to be a muslim living in Canada -- however it also looks like she has changed her account or its visibility since those tweets, which I assume are genuine: you can also find them preserved for posterity here -- her current twitter account is here.

Her account is now also called “Tamania ISIS” – wonder what’s brewing under the thin surface??

31 anon > Well, first of all, considering that there are no buildings explicitly for white people

and what have you done to fix that?

if your strategy is to hold your breath and wait till Michelle Obama puts out a press release stating that "it's ok to be white".... then I really WILL run circles around you in collecting the cream-of-the-crop of indigenous Europeans, as immigrants to my country

and what have you done to fix that?

Broken onto a college campus with a construction crew and building materials and built one, obviously.
if your strategy is to hold your breath and wait till Michelle Obama puts out a press release stating that “it’s ok to be white”….

But clearly that WASN’T the strategy, or else you wouldn’t be reading this article now, would you?
then I really WILL run circles around you in collecting the cream-of-the-crop of indigenous Europeans, as immigrants to my country

Will you? Good. I hope so. Maybe then you could quit living on our handouts.

What kind of Asian would say they are proud to be Asian as opposed to Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Indian, Thai etc?

You could likely still say "I am proud to be European" and not raise too much attention from the pitchfork mob.

Plenty of Asians who grew up in the US have formed an ‘Asian’ identity, in part from the fact that they are the smallest minority group and need ‘brothers in arms’, so to speak, in part because America pushes a pan-Asian identity, and in part because they are often embarassed by their parents and grandparents and feel a bit ashamed about being Chinese or Korean, etc.

There are a significant number of Asians who marry Asians from other parts of Asia. There are also a number of Asians that are now second, third, fourth generation who do not speak Japanese, Korean, or whatever. It might take a couple of extra generations to break them in, but they will lose everything from their language to their culture.

My prediction of the night is that in 100 years, China will be a Christian nation.

32 anon > When people look at a newspaper and see university administrators getting so upset about such an innocuous message, it makes it clear where the battle lines have been drawn, and who is on whose side.

for sure. Was it news to you?

And how long to you plan to spend not building anything new because you're still defining the problem?

What Hiroshima proved was: if you can ONLY separate fissile Uranium atoms from Depleted Uranium atoms at a production rate of 51%-49%..... you can STILL build the two transportable bombs it takes to give yourself another 25 years of breathing room for improving the process to 68-32.

for sure. Was it news to you?

No, but not everyone reads iSteve, do they?
And how long to you plan to spend not building anything new because you’re still defining the problem?

How much time passed between the fall of Jerusalem and the re-establishment of Israel?

I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket.

Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.

Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive. Nor are they useful if you want shape stone tools or do anything practical. While they top the hardness scale, they cleave easily. Any sort of pressure and they break. (My Mother's diamond chipped under normal domestic conditions.) And interestingly, they also burn in normal temperatures in a flame with an oxidizer or just extra oxygen. You end up with graphite. So fragile too because they're unstable.

In the end, I'd say the Africans locally got the better deal. Diamonds are interesting, but they're sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920's. In terms of a resource, it's not like they losing oil or something. It was good deal for them, really. The West was kind of the dope on that one.

I dunno. Did you see the size of the rock the Astros guy gave to his girlfriend last night when he proposed? Yipes!

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car.

Twinkster, my dude… that was just stupid.

You’re a lot more irascible since your extended absence. What happened dude?

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

The left has been looking for an excuse to shut down ‘racist’ websites ever since the election. Chancellorsville was just a pretext.

For some reason, Steve is deliberately ignoring the context of this, which he wouldn't in other circumstances. Obviously this wasn't just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the "Faculty of Native Studies" because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something. It's propaganda, in the neutral, technical sense of the term as opposed to the colloquial sense, and it employs the rhetorical device of understatement. The understatement here, both in the language of the statement and in the location it was posted, is meant for emphasis and irony. A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black "dominance display" and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

As was explained to you, whites are being attacked as whites. Simple as that.

But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

"Patently false." Lol okay. Just compare the few examples of non-whites being condemned for ethnocentrism to the extent and intensity with which whites are condemned for it to understand how stupid you sound.

But perhaps you're not even stupid; maybe you're simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

But perhaps you’re not even stupid; maybe you’re simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

He’s not.

Your inside on the other hand consists largely of your head by way of your ass.

Lots of Christians and least pro-Christians on the alt-right team as far as I can tell. It’s far from monolithic.

Yes, I agree. I was more explaining the alt-white (pro-white) atheist group, which is a very distinct sub-group. They are marked by an open (occasionally closeted) hostility to Christianity and almost completely reliance on HBD theories as both the cause of problems and their solutions. They also tend to be a bit louder than other subgroups.

I'm a Catholic and in general very sympathetic to alt-right discussions.

That's why I said we're kind of hot mess right now. It seems a bit of an unnatural type of alliance. :)

The alt-Right of various flavors is the fever to kill the SJW infection.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

“white psychopath who mowed people down with a car”

Must have missed that. I do recall a motorist at a political rally who was attacked in his car by communists, and who tried to drive to safety despite being trapped by other communists unlawfully blocking the road. I think there was also a communist female in the vicinity who had a heart attack.

Ironically, Volstead himself was no Prohibitionist, but pushing the bill through Congress as a favor to allies tarred his name forever. I've heard similar claims about Govs. Wallace and Faubus re segregation, too.

Volstead retired to his hometown, where he turned down a request by locals to help them enact a local prohibition statute.

You know all those places in the US where the state has a monopoly on liquor sales? Minnesota's quirky take on this is to allow municipalities to have a local version of this. Few take them up on it, but tony Edina and more proletarian Richfield between there and the airport do. It's just weird to see a municipally-run liquor store.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

Indeed, legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C19US6rqqAo

Corvinus, yes, yes he was flawed, but he still was an important historical figure and as such he is now being expunged from every source.

Plenty of Asians who grew up in the US have formed an 'Asian' identity, in part from the fact that they are the smallest minority group and need 'brothers in arms', so to speak, in part because America pushes a pan-Asian identity, and in part because they are often embarassed by their parents and grandparents and feel a bit ashamed about being Chinese or Korean, etc.

There are a significant number of Asians who marry Asians from other parts of Asia. There are also a number of Asians that are now second, third, fourth generation who do not speak Japanese, Korean, or whatever. It might take a couple of extra generations to break them in, but they will lose everything from their language to their culture.

My prediction of the night is that in 100 years, China will be a Christian nation.

Recently at a Toronto bookstore, I saw a young lesbian-looking black woman sporting an Afro and wearing a Tupac t-shirt. I was in a social mood and asked her if she was part of the BLM movement. She immediately was hostile to me and said something suggesting that I didn’t have the “right” to ask her this question. She was probably just pissed that I guessed both her M.O. and the extent of her shallow intellectual shtick within 3 seconds of observing her for the first time.

The problem is that the Irish, Italians, Germans, English, etc., are being attacked as whites. No one speaks of "cigendered, heterosexual Italian men," but of "cisgendered, heterosexual white men." Europeans are being trapped into playing a game not of their choosing, but when they play to win, they're accused of being racists. It's a no-win game -- but there no way not to play given the first line I wrote.

But it has to be admitted that because of intermarriage between different ethnicities, there aren’t many white people who are 100% Italian, for example.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

Indeed, legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C19US6rqqAo

Muhammad was much more flawed than Rhodes. But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer. In fact, progressives seem to love Muslims, to the point of wanting tens of thousands more of them in this country, if recent decisions of the various Obama judges are any indication.

"But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic** (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer."

Rhodes' policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

As was explained to you, whites are being attacked as whites. Simple as that.

But the construct Mr. Sailer created (or quoted) whereby ONLY whites are condemned for ethnocentrism is patently false.

"Patently false." Lol okay. Just compare the few examples of non-whites being condemned for ethnocentrism to the extent and intensity with which whites are condemned for it to understand how stupid you sound.

But perhaps you're not even stupid; maybe you're simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

But perhaps you’re not even stupid; maybe you’re simply yellow on the outside and anti-white on the inside.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

Right. Because Muslims can kill multiple people with rental trucks and we're treated to: #NotAllMuslims. One white guy, who may or may not have been a white supremacist, kills 1 girl, possibly on accident, and suddenly Stormfront is gone?

Killing Jews is actually in/supported by the Islamic theology, unlike Stormfront which will just bore to readers to death with Jewish Conspiracy theory #3,455,112 . But Muslims too can host their websites on Go Daddy because we all know that killing people with cars/vehicles just the work of one lone crazy person and has nothing to do with the ideology. How very enlightened of us.

So yep, nothing to see here. No double standard for whites.

Right. Because Muslims can kill multiple people with rental trucks and we’re treated to: #NotAllMuslims. One white guy, who may or may not have been a white supremacist, kills 1 girl, possibly on accident, and suddenly Stormfront is gone?

1. You need to work on your analogies: James Alex Fields to Stormfront =/ Sayfullo Saipov to Islam.

And I write that as someone who worked in counter-terrorism and as an obedient Catholic whose view of Islam is not exactly, shall we say, positive.

2. “Alcohol is so much worse than Cannabis!” is not a good argument for legalizing the latter; it’s a good argument for banning the former.

If I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure Native Americans that "it's ok to be a Native American".... I wouldn't post my sign at the meeting room of the Vietnamese Buddhist Scout Troop of Virginia Beach (yes, it exists)..... but that 's just me

Likewise, if I thought it was a good use of my ink (and of my time) to assure White persons that "it's ok to be white"... I wouldn't post my sign at the Native American building.

But that's just me.

Now granted... I'm only a member of a tribe that successfully re-established its ancient ethno-state.... so what do I know about strategy?

You might do so if you were trying to troll people. And trolling works!

Don’t think the tribe with its brand-new ethnostate never trolled “anti-semites.”

But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

The explanation is pretty simple, at least to me.

The alt-right is broad grouping of people who would not ordinarily be mixing. We're all here, in one big hot mess, on "those websites" because the social taboo on discussing racial and gender differences is so overwhelming that no honest discussion can be had elsewhere.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer are modernists by worldview. Some even go so far as want the socialism and everything they see around them minus the wonders of diversity that the West has imported in the last 60 years or so. They want to be atheist/agnostics, they want to not worry if cousin turns out to be a little (or a lot) loose in sexual side, they want their own sexual habits to be unencumbered, they want their weekends free, they want the government to cover them in their old age.

In their defense, they do see that modernism not working, or otherwise they won't be pro-white. They willingly address one of the worst problems to date of modernism. That is, European societies complete lack of social cohesion to the point where they invite and pay for the barbarians to live next door.

However, pro-whites won't go any farther than that in their thinking. They like the rest of modernism, so it's hard to do anything but say "Yippee for white DNA!" "Westerners are free!" "We're so advanced that we're open on the gay thing" "And have more babies!" (<--This would be the sum of Richard Spencer's thinking on the subject, a single man, as far as I can tell.)

Meanwhile, anyone who has strong religious faith (including those dreaded Jews) are having the large families. But that religious faith requires so much more than their comfortable modernism does. Modernism and Christianity are view points on the world that are inherently at odds.

So rather look, in security, to see if there's something there in that Christianity thing, all the pro-whites can do is snip at it and be little crazy themselves about it. Christianity, even executed at far less than perfection, challenges the core of who they think they are.

It's been my contention for a while that alt-whites (pro-whites) will have to move towards Christianity, even if it's merely to drop their hostility to it. Modernism sterilizes and atomizes our society. The barbarians are being let loose because 2000 years of the truths and rituals that create social cohesion are being ignored or angrily rejected in the name of comfort and ego.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer

Spencer is pro-Spencer, not “pro-whites.”

I’ve done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom – of the two – you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

That is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. I may not agree with him a whole lot, and I would agree even with less a David Duke or a William Pierce (to say the least), but it's just obvious that these people are indeed pro-white.

Yes, you'll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it's just a matter of plain truth that you're not going to be helping those poor whites because they're white so it's silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

As things stand today, the Catholic church is part of the problem many times more than it is part of the solution. It needn't be so, but it clearly is.

Whom – of the two – you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

The anti-white status quo is not going to be overthrown by pretending those who challenge it are "evil."

For some reason, Steve is deliberately ignoring the context of this, which he wouldn't in other circumstances. Obviously this wasn't just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the "Faculty of Native Studies" because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something. It's propaganda, in the neutral, technical sense of the term as opposed to the colloquial sense, and it employs the rhetorical device of understatement. The understatement here, both in the language of the statement and in the location it was posted, is meant for emphasis and irony. A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black "dominance display" and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

Two points: one, there’s no white studies departments, so there’s no equivalent for where aggressive black statements could be posted.

More importantly, this isn’t a covert “whites are superior” message, as it probably would be with blacks. (Black Lives Matter means black lives matter more.) What you’ve got here is a brilliant troll. They know leftists will take it as aggression, but it’s superficially innocuous enough to make them look foolish for doing so. That turns normies on to their anti-white animus.

Plenty of leftists realize this, undoubtedly. They’re onto our multiple-step strategies. But they can’t help themselves. They know the point is about their reaction, but must go through with denouncing the note as if it were racist. Because they know in their minds we’re racists, and that’s wrong. We’re just wrong, dangit, and they must call us racists, despite the fact that in so doing they reveal their own racism.

I'm not sure if you've been on a college campus recently, but most college Germanic, Slavic, Italian, etc. departments tend to be very small and attract mainly "heritage learners" i.e. undergrads fulfilling their language requirement by taking a language that is part of their heritage, continuing ed adult students who have an interest in their heritage, etc.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car.

My impression is that he was trying to avoid getting pulled out of his car and getting beaten or worse.

Rhodes' policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

I note that you avoided mention of Muhammad's far greater sins. But no one is proposing that he be deified and worshiped in temples, as Muhammad is. Imagine the liberal reaction if a religion sprang up around Rhodes.

I've done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom - of the two - you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

You know, the Twinkster became the Asian version of Jack D so gradually, I barely even noticed!

For some reason, Steve is deliberately ignoring the context of this, which he wouldn't in other circumstances. Obviously this wasn't just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the "Faculty of Native Studies" because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something. It's propaganda, in the neutral, technical sense of the term as opposed to the colloquial sense, and it employs the rhetorical device of understatement. The understatement here, both in the language of the statement and in the location it was posted, is meant for emphasis and irony. A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black "dominance display" and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

Obviously this wasn’t just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the “Faculty of Native Studies” because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something.

It’s my understanding that more than one flier was posted and that one of them happened to be within the vicinity of the native studies faculty.

But if it did happen as you say, then I’ll partly grant your following point:

A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

How it’s interpreted depends entirely on the general “racial atmosphere” of a given society. Today, with all the acceptance and promotion that pro-black – even “black power” – attitudes receive, I think it would be seen as an aggressive move aimed to assert dominance – perhaps not immediately, because the language is so subdued, but on reflection, that would be a likely interpretation.

In today’s world, however, in which positive white self-regard is condemned at every turn, a deliberate and unambiguous posting of this message at the faculty of native studies could hardly be interpreted as a “dominance display” (except in the minds of deranged sjw’s, for whom everything is “white supremacy”). It is best interpreted as a meek reminder that whites have feelings too.

I've done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom - of the two - you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

Spencer is pro-Spencer, not “pro-whites.”

That is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. I may not agree with him a whole lot, and I would agree even with less a David Duke or a William Pierce (to say the least), but it’s just obvious that these people are indeed pro-white.

Yes, you’ll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it’s just a matter of plain truth that you’re not going to be helping those poor whites because they’re white so it’s silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

As things stand today, the Catholic church is part of the problem many times more than it is part of the solution. It needn’t be so, but it clearly is.

Whom – of the two – you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

The anti-white status quo is not going to be overthrown by pretending those who challenge it are “evil.”

Are they? And what, exactly, have Richard Spencer, David Duke, and William Pierce done for whites? How have they improved the lives of whites, especially the economically downscale ones who are suffering from the ill effects of globalization, mass immigration, and automation?

Yes, you’ll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it’s just a matter of plain truth that you’re not going to be helping those poor whites because they’re white so it’s silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

1. I am not a white supremacist. I am a "citizenist." I care about helping my fellow Americans, period. Even though I have a dim view of Hispanics and blacks in general, I still mean well for those among them who are of good will and are productive citizens.

2. It's not an accident that the vast majority of families I have helped are white, and in particular are West Virginia whites.

3. Even if number 2 were not the case, yours is a bizarre (and sad) argument. Spencer and co. have not lifted a finger (literally) to help other whites, but they say that they are pro-white, so they are in your view. Meanwhile, I have objectively, measurably, and physically helped poor white families (and advocate policies that would help them), but because I am not a white supremacist or a cartoon neo-Nazi, I am not pro-white?

My husband backed down on his plan to say, "Proud to be English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, French, Dutch, Norwegian and Finnish." Somehow it does not slide off the tongue as easily as when I say I am "Proud to be Jewish." No DNA test for me - I am afraid there may be a Goy in the wood pile. :-)

If you are Ashkenazi, you are around 60% Goy. Italian, German and Slavic admixture.

I've done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom - of the two - you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

“Alcohol is so much worse than Cannabis!” is not a good argument

It’s not an argument, it’s a minor premise. The conclusion depends on the other premises assumed.

I've done far more for white people (and the whole country, for that matter) while Spencer was busy dating Asian women. I still do. This weekend, for example, I will be, again, helping to build homes for poor whites in West Virginia, along with my older children. Meanwhile, Spencer will be playing a cartoon neo-Nazi somewhere in front of cameras. And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

Whom - of the two - you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

You know, if you had followed the first thread (Lurker/AM) this comment might have been a lot less silly.

Right…the website that was chased to Iceland or Hungry or something, while any manner of anti-white/racial pride groups can just open an account on Go Daddy.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car. Before that, Stormfront was tolerated just fine and seemed to have no trouble finding a host.

I don't disagree that there is toleration for rampant anti-white sentiments in the media, but to claim that the worst of whites only ask "Is it okay to be white" is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

to claim that the worst of whites only ask “Is it okay to be white” is, at best, a rhetorical flourish and, at worst, a racial propaganda.

And the commenters claiming this are who again?

I get your idea that loudly claiming to be a “proud White* person” would be every bit as fatuous as claiming to be a “proud Asian person”, which is pretty fatuous. But, really, that isn’t or at least wasn’t the issue under discussion here.

I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket.

Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.

Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive. Nor are they useful if you want shape stone tools or do anything practical. While they top the hardness scale, they cleave easily. Any sort of pressure and they break. (My Mother's diamond chipped under normal domestic conditions.) And interestingly, they also burn in normal temperatures in a flame with an oxidizer or just extra oxygen. You end up with graphite. So fragile too because they're unstable.

In the end, I'd say the Africans locally got the better deal. Diamonds are interesting, but they're sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920's. In terms of a resource, it's not like they losing oil or something. It was good deal for them, really. The West was kind of the dope on that one.

“Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.”

And Europeans in particular found diamonds extremely valuable, so much so that they made South Africa a colony at the expense of natives.

“Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive.”

But they are valuable. They are desired. They are attractive because of the end result of the process.

“In the end, I’d say the Africans locally got the better deal.”

By having that natural resource be seized from them?

“Diamonds are interesting, but they’re sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920′s.”

Muhammad was much more flawed than Rhodes. But you don't hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic (in the dictionary sense - of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer. In fact, progressives seem to love Muslims, to the point of wanting tens of thousands more of them in this country, if recent decisions of the various Obama judges are any indication.

“Muhammad was much more flawed than Rhodes.”

Which is merely a personal opinion, which management appreciates.

“But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic** (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer.”

Rhodes’ policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

"But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic** (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer."

Rhodes' policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

"I have come to the conclusion that passing the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes."

The 18th Amendment and Volstead Act ("Prohibition") of the 1960s.

The 18th Amendment and Volstead Act (“Prohibition”) of the 1960s.

Ironically, Volstead himself was no Prohibitionist, but pushing the bill through Congress as a favor to allies tarred his name forever. I’ve heard similar claims about Govs. Wallace and Faubus re segregation, too.

Volstead retired to his hometown, where he turned down a request by locals to help them enact a local prohibition statute.

You know all those places in the US where the state has a monopoly on liquor sales? Minnesota’s quirky take on this is to allow municipalities to have a local version of this. Few take them up on it, but tony Edina and more proletarian Richfield between there and the airport do. It’s just weird to see a municipally-run liquor store.

I was driving past "tony Edina" of a recent afternoon and saw three cars pulled over on a few-mile stretch. (Don't they earn enough in property taxes?) In addition to prohibition, they have Draconian traffic laws going for them.

I only ever go there to see indie movies at the theater. I'd guess the median age of the population is 99 and 1/2. So instead of booze they probably get high off of old-people drugs.

"But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic** (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer."

Rhodes' policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

"But you don’t hear progressives excoriating Muslims for following the religion created by this pedophilic** (in the dictionary sense – of initiating sexual contact with prepubescent individuals) mass murderer."

Rhodes' policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

Indeed, legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C19US6rqqAo

“It must be brought home to them”, Rhodes said, “that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better”.

Worldwide, what percentage of blacks would you guess spend their lives in manual labor?

That is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. I may not agree with him a whole lot, and I would agree even with less a David Duke or a William Pierce (to say the least), but it's just obvious that these people are indeed pro-white.

Yes, you'll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it's just a matter of plain truth that you're not going to be helping those poor whites because they're white so it's silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

As things stand today, the Catholic church is part of the problem many times more than it is part of the solution. It needn't be so, but it clearly is.

Whom – of the two – you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

The anti-white status quo is not going to be overthrown by pretending those who challenge it are "evil."

As things stand today, the Catholic church is part of the problem many times more than it is part of the solution. It needn’t be so, but it clearly is.

Nope, not the ones celebrating the Mass in Latin.

The anti-white status quo is not going to be overthrown by pretending those who challenge it are “evil.”

All of us here are challenging the anti-white status quo, Einstein.

When will you ever get tired of beclowning yourself and just lurk for awhile?

Ironically, Volstead himself was no Prohibitionist, but pushing the bill through Congress as a favor to allies tarred his name forever. I've heard similar claims about Govs. Wallace and Faubus re segregation, too.

Volstead retired to his hometown, where he turned down a request by locals to help them enact a local prohibition statute.

You know all those places in the US where the state has a monopoly on liquor sales? Minnesota's quirky take on this is to allow municipalities to have a local version of this. Few take them up on it, but tony Edina and more proletarian Richfield between there and the airport do. It's just weird to see a municipally-run liquor store.

I was driving past “tony Edina” of a recent afternoon and saw three cars pulled over on a few-mile stretch. (Don’t they earn enough in property taxes?) In addition to prohibition, they have Draconian traffic laws going for them.

I only ever go there to see indie movies at the theater. I’d guess the median age of the population is 99 and 1/2. So instead of booze they probably get high off of old-people drugs.

Rhodes was a product of the times. A true "invade the world, invite the world" Renaissance man. I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket. A member of the ruling class, he viewed natives as a "subject race" and ensured their self-determination would be decided by "the first race in the world".

"It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of [blacks] will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better". He certainly whipped those darkies into shape. We all yearn for those those types of virile white leaders to replace our current crop of flaccid politicians.

Indeed, legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C19US6rqqAo

Good thing blacks don’t spend their lives doing manual labor anymore.* Now they have make-work government jobs. Progress!

*Although, trigger fingers are located on hands, and you don’t sign welfare checks with your feet.

You can blame that on the white psychopath who mowed people down with a car.

My impression is that he was trying to avoid getting pulled out of his car and getting beaten or worse.

Rhodes’ policies were instrumental in the jackbooting and killing of several millions of people.

I note that you avoided mention of Muhammad’s far greater sins. But no one is proposing that he be deified and worshiped in temples, as Muhammad is. Imagine the liberal reaction if a religion sprang up around Rhodes.

You mean religion perverted by its adherents to fit a particular agenda are responsible in murdering people, whether it be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

No, Corvinus. I mean, Muhammad himself ordered people killed for mocking him. He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That's Islam. It's not a perversion. It's Islam. Islam is bad. This is why you like it.
Of course people love Muslims, especially white Americans who have them as close friends.

I mean, those Africans had no clue how valuable were those diamonds, so he, as a gentlemen, kindly took that valuable resource off their hands and put them into his back pocket.

Things that surround you are only as valuable as the society around deems them valuable.

Diamonds in their rough state are not attractive. Nor are they useful if you want shape stone tools or do anything practical. While they top the hardness scale, they cleave easily. Any sort of pressure and they break. (My Mother's diamond chipped under normal domestic conditions.) And interestingly, they also burn in normal temperatures in a flame with an oxidizer or just extra oxygen. You end up with graphite. So fragile too because they're unstable.

In the end, I'd say the Africans locally got the better deal. Diamonds are interesting, but they're sort of faddish gemstone, making it big when diamond industry figured out to market them to the masses and throttle supply in the 1920's. In terms of a resource, it's not like they losing oil or something. It was good deal for them, really. The West was kind of the dope on that one.

No one talks about the fact that GE was making artificial diamonds in the 1950s and somehow that just vanished into the memory hole. Some very impressive gem quality stones were displayed. I’d like to know how DeBeers got that quashed.

"Muhammad’s policies were intrumental in the killing of more. As you know."

You mean religion perverted by its adherents to fit a particular agenda are responsible in murdering people, whether it be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

"No, nobody loves Muslims."

Of course people love Muslims, especially white Americans who have them as close friends. You're wrong yet again.

"The supermajority of rattlesnakes never bite a human being either, but I don’t want you bringing more of them into my neighborhood."

False comparison. Muslims aren't a venomous snake, they are human beings. Are you really that ignorant?

"Worldwide, what percentage of blacks would you guess spend their lives in manual labor?"

Rhodes was referring to blacks being exclusively employed in manual labor for the good of the British crown. It's called context.

You mean religion perverted by its adherents to fit a particular agenda are responsible in murdering people, whether it be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

No, Corvinus. I mean, Muhammad himself ordered people killed for mocking him. He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That’s Islam. It’s not a perversion. It’s Islam. Islam is bad. This is why you like it.
Of course people love Muslims, especially white Americans who have them as close friends.

On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God's prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God's prophets to turn the other cheek:

Be patient over what they say and remember our servant David, the man of strength for he was repeatedly turning (to God)"[Quran 38:17]

Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun and before its setting, yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that you may have (spiritual) joy. [Quran 20:130]

And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. [Quran 73:10]

"He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That’s Islam."

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament, but by the time Paul came around to organize the congregations, excommunication became the tool used by the Church in the temporal world. However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

"That’s why they’re more dangerous, and more of a problem."

That's why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

"Because you hate western civilization and white people and everything else that is good."

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

"Be that as it may, what percentage of them do manual labor? Are they better off now than they were when they were laboring for the British empire?"

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise. They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

You mean religion perverted by its adherents to fit a particular agenda are responsible in murdering people, whether it be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

No, Corvinus. I mean, Muhammad himself ordered people killed for mocking him. He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That's Islam. It's not a perversion. It's Islam. Islam is bad. This is why you like it.
Of course people love Muslims, especially white Americans who have them as close friends.

On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God’s prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God’s prophets to turn the other cheek:

Be patient over what they say and remember our servant David, the man of strength for he was repeatedly turning (to God)”[Quran 38:17]

Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun and before its setting, yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that you may have (spiritual) joy. [Quran 20:130]

And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. [Quran 73:10]

“He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That’s Islam.”

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament, but by the time Paul came around to organize the congregations, excommunication became the tool used by the Church in the temporal world. However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

“That’s why they’re more dangerous, and more of a problem.”

That’s why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

“Because you hate western civilization and white people and everything else that is good.”

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

“Be that as it may, what percentage of them do manual labor? Are they better off now than they were when they were laboring for the British empire?”

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise. They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

I suspect that those who insult God or desecrate the Bible or commit other acts of blasphemy could expect such a reprisal.

Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind.

You see? How can you even say that all religions are equally good when you don't even know the first thing about them?
On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God’s prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God’s prophets to turn the other cheek:

That's nice. But that doesn't really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him.

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament

This refers to a religion known as "Judaism".

However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don't believe in Christianity, you don't believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?
That’s why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

They're enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us. Which isn't saying much, because there are no benefits to having Muslims here. Which is why you want them here. Because you hate America and just want to make it worse.

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

You haven't refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point.

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise.

Oh, please tell me what the "otherwise" was. Was they being kangz?

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

By what metric?
As far as how Islam views apostasy today, it varies.

That's a dishonest way of saying "The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don't think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.".

On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God's prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God's prophets to turn the other cheek:

Be patient over what they say and remember our servant David, the man of strength for he was repeatedly turning (to God)"[Quran 38:17]

Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun and before its setting, yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that you may have (spiritual) joy. [Quran 20:130]

And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. [Quran 73:10]

"He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That’s Islam."

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament, but by the time Paul came around to organize the congregations, excommunication became the tool used by the Church in the temporal world. However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

"That’s why they’re more dangerous, and more of a problem."

That's why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

"Because you hate western civilization and white people and everything else that is good."

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

"Be that as it may, what percentage of them do manual labor? Are they better off now than they were when they were laboring for the British empire?"

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise. They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

I suspect that those who insult God or desecrate the Bible or commit other acts of blasphemy could expect such a reprisal.

Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind.

You see? How can you even say that all religions are equally good when you don’t even know the first thing about them?
On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God’s prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God’s prophets to turn the other cheek:

That’s nice. But that doesn’t really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him.

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament

This refers to a religion known as “Judaism”.

However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don’t believe in Christianity, you don’t believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?
That’s why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

They’re enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us. Which isn’t saying much, because there are no benefits to having Muslims here. Which is why you want them here. Because you hate America and just want to make it worse.

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

You haven’t refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point.

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise.

Oh, please tell me what the “otherwise” was. Was they being kangz?

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

By what metric?
As far as how Islam views apostasy today, it varies.

That’s a dishonest way of saying “The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don’t think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.”.

"Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind."

One cannot measure religions by "superiority". It is based on a person's belief in the faith. There is no such thing as "one religion being better than another religion" since each adherent could naturally make the claim and work to strengthen or denigrate their "opposition" in this manner. This ranking and justifying of religions is an ultimately an opinion.

And even Jesus, the Prince of Peace, stated in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (10:34) and discussed the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that will occur Judgment Day (13:42).

"That’s nice. But that doesn’t really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him."

Nor the fact that the Yahweh and God had people killed for mocking Him; however, in all three holy books, there are passages that inform their followers to "turn the other cheek". I offered the proper context, you ignored it. Typical.

"This refers to a religion known as “Judaism”."

Excuse you, but a Christian requires a basic understanding of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by gaining a thorough understanding of BOTH texts. The Christian cannot be committed to Christ without being committed to his teaching. It follows that Christ’s attitude to the Old Testament will begin to convey itself to the Christian who is carefully studying the New Testament.

"Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don’t believe in Christianity, you don’t believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?"

Of course it matters. If a Christian leaves the church, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

"They’re enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us."

A few of them here pose a problem.

"Because you hate America and just want to make it worse."

So anyone who seeks to justify the presence or legality of Muslim-American citizens automatically hates America? The train is fine, the train is fine.

"You haven’t refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point."

Some Muslims cause problems. Muslims, who are people and are like any other group, have their benefits, as evident by their friendships, relationships, interactions, and experiences with non-Muslims in our great land. YOU may not find benefit to them, and that is your opinion.

"Oh, please tell me what the “otherwise” was. Was they being kangz?"

There were living their lives in the manner they wanted to prior to European jackbooting and murder. The metric, of course, was for Africans, as human beings, to pursue their own ways of life through life, liberty, and property.

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

"That’s a dishonest way of saying “The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don’t think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.”

Actually, you are being dishonest here, as it is a fact that apostasy among Muslims is a highly debatable topic, as evident by my reference through Infogalactic.

On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God's prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God's prophets to turn the other cheek:

Be patient over what they say and remember our servant David, the man of strength for he was repeatedly turning (to God)"[Quran 38:17]

Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun and before its setting, yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that you may have (spiritual) joy. [Quran 20:130]

And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. [Quran 73:10]

"He himself said that people should be killed for leaving the religion. That’s Islam."

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament, but by the time Paul came around to organize the congregations, excommunication became the tool used by the Church in the temporal world. However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

"That’s why they’re more dangerous, and more of a problem."

That's why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

"Because you hate western civilization and white people and everything else that is good."

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

"Be that as it may, what percentage of them do manual labor? Are they better off now than they were when they were laboring for the British empire?"

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise. They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament…

Did they even have capitolia in Old Testament days? I thought the Romans invented them.

Obviously this wasn’t just some matter of fact utterance that just happened by chance to be posted at the “Faculty of Native Studies” because the bulletin boards in the student union building were filled up or something.

It's my understanding that more than one flier was posted and that one of them happened to be within the vicinity of the native studies faculty.

But if it did happen as you say, then I'll partly grant your following point:

A similar message by blacks posted on some place like the faculty of Germanic Studies would be identified by Steve not as some neutral, matter of fact statement but as some sort of black “dominance display” and racialist propaganda and reflection of black egoism.

How it's interpreted depends entirely on the general "racial atmosphere" of a given society. Today, with all the acceptance and promotion that pro-black - even "black power" - attitudes receive, I think it would be seen as an aggressive move aimed to assert dominance - perhaps not immediately, because the language is so subdued, but on reflection, that would be a likely interpretation.

In today's world, however, in which positive white self-regard is condemned at every turn, a deliberate and unambiguous posting of this message at the faculty of native studies could hardly be interpreted as a "dominance display" (except in the minds of deranged sjw's, for whom everything is "white supremacy"). It is best interpreted as a meek reminder that whites have feelings too.

I was talking about how it would be interpreted by Steve and his readers.

It turns out that the posters were part of a 4chan /pol/ campaign, which supports my original points:

Two points: one, there's no white studies departments, so there's no equivalent for where aggressive black statements could be posted.

More importantly, this isn't a covert "whites are superior" message, as it probably would be with blacks. (Black Lives Matter means black lives matter more.) What you've got here is a brilliant troll. They know leftists will take it as aggression, but it's superficially innocuous enough to make them look foolish for doing so. That turns normies on to their anti-white animus.

Plenty of leftists realize this, undoubtedly. They're onto our multiple-step strategies. But they can't help themselves. They know the point is about their reaction, but must go through with denouncing the note as if it were racist. Because they know in their minds we're racists, and that's wrong. We're just wrong, dangit, and they must call us racists, despite the fact that in so doing they reveal their own racism.

Because SJWs always double down, as a book told me.

I’m not sure if you’ve been on a college campus recently, but most college Germanic, Slavic, Italian, etc. departments tend to be very small and attract mainly “heritage learners” i.e. undergrads fulfilling their language requirement by taking a language that is part of their heritage, continuing ed adult students who have an interest in their heritage, etc.

I suspect that those who insult God or desecrate the Bible or commit other acts of blasphemy could expect such a reprisal.

Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind.

You see? How can you even say that all religions are equally good when you don't even know the first thing about them?
On the other hand, the Quran narrates how God’s prophets (including Muhammad) were ridiculed and abused by their contemporaries, but instructed God’s prophets to turn the other cheek:

That's nice. But that doesn't really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him.

Leaving the religion was a capitol offense in the Old Testament

This refers to a religion known as "Judaism".

However, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don't believe in Christianity, you don't believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?
That’s why but a few are dangerous and pose a problem.

They're enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us. Which isn't saying much, because there are no benefits to having Muslims here. Which is why you want them here. Because you hate America and just want to make it worse.

So me refuting you equates to hating western civilization and white people? Wow, just wow.

You haven't refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point.

Prior to European jackbooting and murder, Africans were engaging in all sorts of labor, manual or otherwise.

Oh, please tell me what the "otherwise" was. Was they being kangz?

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

By what metric?
As far as how Islam views apostasy today, it varies.

That's a dishonest way of saying "The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don't think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.".

“Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind.”

One cannot measure religions by “superiority”. It is based on a person’s belief in the faith. There is no such thing as “one religion being better than another religion” since each adherent could naturally make the claim and work to strengthen or denigrate their “opposition” in this manner. This ranking and justifying of religions is an ultimately an opinion.

And even Jesus, the Prince of Peace, stated in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (10:34) and discussed the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that will occur Judgment Day (13:42).

“That’s nice. But that doesn’t really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him.”

Nor the fact that the Yahweh and God had people killed for mocking Him; however, in all three holy books, there are passages that inform their followers to “turn the other cheek”. I offered the proper context, you ignored it. Typical.

“This refers to a religion known as “Judaism”.”

Excuse you, but a Christian requires a basic understanding of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by gaining a thorough understanding of BOTH texts. The Christian cannot be committed to Christ without being committed to his teaching. It follows that Christ’s attitude to the Old Testament will begin to convey itself to the Christian who is carefully studying the New Testament.

“Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don’t believe in Christianity, you don’t believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?”

Of course it matters. If a Christian leaves the church, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

“They’re enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us.”

A few of them here pose a problem.

“Because you hate America and just want to make it worse.”

So anyone who seeks to justify the presence or legality of Muslim-American citizens automatically hates America? The train is fine, the train is fine.

“You haven’t refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point.”

Some Muslims cause problems. Muslims, who are people and are like any other group, have their benefits, as evident by their friendships, relationships, interactions, and experiences with non-Muslims in our great land. YOU may not find benefit to them, and that is your opinion.

“Oh, please tell me what the “otherwise” was. Was they being kangz?”

There were living their lives in the manner they wanted to prior to European jackbooting and murder. The metric, of course, was for Africans, as human beings, to pursue their own ways of life through life, liberty, and property.

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

“That’s a dishonest way of saying “The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don’t think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.”

Actually, you are being dishonest here, as it is a fact that apostasy among Muslims is a highly debatable topic, as evident by my reference through Infogalactic.

Generally speaking, it's rare for two phenomena to be of equal quality. Whenever someone says things are equally good, they're just advocating for something they know is worse, and just don't want to admit it.

It is based on a person’s belief in the faith.

This is incorrect. I have no faith in the tenets of Buddhism, for example. But I can still tell that it is better than Islam, due in large part to Buddha not telling his followers to kill innocent people.
This ranking and justifying of religions is an ultimately an opinion.

That's true, in the same sense that it's only my opinion that killing innocent people (which Muhammad advocated and practiced) is worse than NOT killing innocent people (which Jesus practiced).

You know this, of course.
And even Jesus, the Prince of Peace, stated in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”

He did say that. That's true. Of course, due to the fact that he never actually did carry a sword, I think it's safe to say that it was a metaphorical sword. Which makes it rather less problematic than the real, physical, non-metaphorical sword Muhammad used to kill people. Or the sword his follower used to chop the heads off of people who mocked Muhammad, at his request.

You also know this, and are simply being dishonest.
discussed the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that will occur Judgment Day (13:42).

Well, again, this only applies to non-believers. And non-believers don't actually believe this is going to happen, so it's not much of a threat to them. They're not getting their heads chopped off, like Muhammad would do.

Nor the fact that the Yahweh and God had people killed for mocking Him

Once again. If you don't believe that, it's not really a problem. Whereas, if I don't believe a Muslim is going to chop my head off, and he decides he's going to anyway, my head is coming off.

Of course, if you DO believe that story, then you also believe that God kills EVERYONE. That is not the same thing as telling your followers to do it too.

, in all three holy books, there are passages that inform their followers to “turn the other cheek”. I offered the proper context, you ignored it. Typical.

I didn't ignore it. I said that it was nice, but doesn't change the fact that Muhammad REALLY DID chop off people's heads for mocking him.

Muhammad contradicts himself all the time. This is why Islam developed the concept of "abrogated" verses. Are you so ignorant that you don't know about these, or is this more of your characteristic dishonesty.

The fact that a murderous psychopath also sometimes says nice things doesn't change the fact that he's still a murderous psychopath, or that he advocated for murder at other times.

On the other hand, Jesus said not to kill people, and also DIDN'T kill people, or tell others to kill people.

Unless you think non-murder is just as good as murder, Christianity is the clearly superior religion.

It follows that Christ’s attitude to the Old Testament will begin to convey itself to the Christian who is carefully studying the New Testament.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. Jesus expressed his attitude towards the Old Testament, which was mostly "Screw that Jewish bullshit.".

Of course it matters. If a Christian leaves the church, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

It only matters if you believe that. And if you leave the church, you don't.

Once again. If Muhammad tells one of his followers to kill you, he's going to kill you whether you believe in Islam or not.

You can't really be this stupid that you don't get this, can you?

A few of them here pose a problem.

They all pose a problem, because they are the ocean in which the terrorists swim. And they constantly whine about us doing the things we need to do to stop the terrorists. That's why we weren't investigating the most recent terrorist's mosque. Because supposedly "good" Muslims whined about it.

Plus, it's a problem having members of an inferior culture, who think a mass murderer is the most morally perfect person in human history.

On the other hand, there are no benefits to them being here. They are, on net, purely negative. You know this. It's why you want them here. Because you hate America and western civilization.

So anyone who seeks to justify the presence or legality of Muslim-American citizens automatically hates America?

No, just the ones who advocate bringing in more of them, or who pretend that their religion is somehow just as good as the others. By doing so, you're saying that murder is just as good as non-murder. Why would you do this is you weren't a terrible person?

The train is fine, the train is fine.

This line has never been clever or funny, but you keep saying it.

Muslims, who are people and are like any other group, have their benefits, as evident by their friendships, relationships, interactions, and experiences with non-Muslims in our great land.

Those aren't benefits. Are you suggesting that people never had friendships or relationships here BEFORE you started bringing in people who think slaughtering innocent people is the greatest thing a person can do?

There were living their lives in the manner they wanted to prior to European jackbooting and murder.

And you'd estimate that over 90% of them were engaged in manual labor, wouldn't you?
The metric, of course, was for Africans, as human beings, to pursue their own ways of life through life, liberty, and property.

They didn't really have liberty before the Europeans showed up. Their life expectancy was probably lower too, so less life, even.

But that isn't a "metric" anyway. It's just you re-stating your stupid point.
Actually, you are being dishonest here, as it is a fact that apostasy among Muslims is a highly debatable topic, as evident by my reference through Infogalactic.

Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.

But why don't you go ahead and tell me what you think is an acceptable percentage of peopleto support murdering innocent people? Because people who believe that make our society SO much better.

"Actually, Jesus (of the far superior religion known as Christianity) was quite specific about not using violence of any kind."

One cannot measure religions by "superiority". It is based on a person's belief in the faith. There is no such thing as "one religion being better than another religion" since each adherent could naturally make the claim and work to strengthen or denigrate their "opposition" in this manner. This ranking and justifying of religions is an ultimately an opinion.

And even Jesus, the Prince of Peace, stated in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (10:34) and discussed the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that will occur Judgment Day (13:42).

"That’s nice. But that doesn’t really change the fact that Muhammad, his own self, had people killed for mocking him."

Nor the fact that the Yahweh and God had people killed for mocking Him; however, in all three holy books, there are passages that inform their followers to "turn the other cheek". I offered the proper context, you ignored it. Typical.

"This refers to a religion known as “Judaism”."

Excuse you, but a Christian requires a basic understanding of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by gaining a thorough understanding of BOTH texts. The Christian cannot be committed to Christ without being committed to his teaching. It follows that Christ’s attitude to the Old Testament will begin to convey itself to the Christian who is carefully studying the New Testament.

"Yeah, but you only care if you believe in the religion. If you don’t believe in Christianity, you don’t believe that, so it hardly matters, now does it? Not really the same thing as actually killing them at all, now is it?"

Of course it matters. If a Christian leaves the church, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

"They’re enough of a problem that they outweigh whatever benefits having Muslims here brings us."

A few of them here pose a problem.

"Because you hate America and just want to make it worse."

So anyone who seeks to justify the presence or legality of Muslim-American citizens automatically hates America? The train is fine, the train is fine.

"You haven’t refuted anything. Muslims cause problems. They bring no benefits. The fact that you want to bring them here proves my point."

Some Muslims cause problems. Muslims, who are people and are like any other group, have their benefits, as evident by their friendships, relationships, interactions, and experiences with non-Muslims in our great land. YOU may not find benefit to them, and that is your opinion.

"Oh, please tell me what the “otherwise” was. Was they being kangz?"

There were living their lives in the manner they wanted to prior to European jackbooting and murder. The metric, of course, was for Africans, as human beings, to pursue their own ways of life through life, liberty, and property.

They were better off living their own lives rather than having a gun repeatedly pointing at their head while toiling for John Bull.

"That’s a dishonest way of saying “The majority of Muslims today believe in execution or imprisonment for apostasy, and I know this, but I want to bring them to this society anyway, because I know that decent people don’t think we should, and I hate decent people and want to make them suffer.”

Actually, you are being dishonest here, as it is a fact that apostasy among Muslims is a highly debatable topic, as evident by my reference through Infogalactic.

One cannot measure religions by “superiority”.

Of course one can. One can do whatever one likes.

Generally speaking, it’s rare for two phenomena to be of equal quality. Whenever someone says things are equally good, they’re just advocating for something they know is worse, and just don’t want to admit it.

It is based on a person’s belief in the faith.

This is incorrect. I have no faith in the tenets of Buddhism, for example. But I can still tell that it is better than Islam, due in large part to Buddha not telling his followers to kill innocent people.
This ranking and justifying of religions is an ultimately an opinion.

That’s true, in the same sense that it’s only my opinion that killing innocent people (which Muhammad advocated and practiced) is worse than NOT killing innocent people (which Jesus practiced).

You know this, of course.
And even Jesus, the Prince of Peace, stated in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”

He did say that. That’s true. Of course, due to the fact that he never actually did carry a sword, I think it’s safe to say that it was a metaphorical sword. Which makes it rather less problematic than the real, physical, non-metaphorical sword Muhammad used to kill people. Or the sword his follower used to chop the heads off of people who mocked Muhammad, at his request.

You also know this, and are simply being dishonest.
discussed the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that will occur Judgment Day (13:42).

Well, again, this only applies to non-believers. And non-believers don’t actually believe this is going to happen, so it’s not much of a threat to them. They’re not getting their heads chopped off, like Muhammad would do.

Nor the fact that the Yahweh and God had people killed for mocking Him

Once again. If you don’t believe that, it’s not really a problem. Whereas, if I don’t believe a Muslim is going to chop my head off, and he decides he’s going to anyway, my head is coming off.

Of course, if you DO believe that story, then you also believe that God kills EVERYONE. That is not the same thing as telling your followers to do it too.

, in all three holy books, there are passages that inform their followers to “turn the other cheek”. I offered the proper context, you ignored it. Typical.

I didn’t ignore it. I said that it was nice, but doesn’t change the fact that Muhammad REALLY DID chop off people’s heads for mocking him.

Muhammad contradicts himself all the time. This is why Islam developed the concept of “abrogated” verses. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know about these, or is this more of your characteristic dishonesty.

The fact that a murderous psychopath also sometimes says nice things doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a murderous psychopath, or that he advocated for murder at other times.

On the other hand, Jesus said not to kill people, and also DIDN’T kill people, or tell others to kill people.

Unless you think non-murder is just as good as murder, Christianity is the clearly superior religion.

It follows that Christ’s attitude to the Old Testament will begin to convey itself to the Christian who is carefully studying the New Testament.

Yes, that’s exactly what happened. Jesus expressed his attitude towards the Old Testament, which was mostly “Screw that Jewish bullshit.”.

Of course it matters. If a Christian leaves the church, his/her soul would burn in Hell for eternity as punishment by God.

It only matters if you believe that. And if you leave the church, you don’t.

Once again. If Muhammad tells one of his followers to kill you, he’s going to kill you whether you believe in Islam or not.

You can’t really be this stupid that you don’t get this, can you?

A few of them here pose a problem.

They all pose a problem, because they are the ocean in which the terrorists swim. And they constantly whine about us doing the things we need to do to stop the terrorists. That’s why we weren’t investigating the most recent terrorist’s mosque. Because supposedly “good” Muslims whined about it.

Plus, it’s a problem having members of an inferior culture, who think a mass murderer is the most morally perfect person in human history.

On the other hand, there are no benefits to them being here. They are, on net, purely negative. You know this. It’s why you want them here. Because you hate America and western civilization.

So anyone who seeks to justify the presence or legality of Muslim-American citizens automatically hates America?

No, just the ones who advocate bringing in more of them, or who pretend that their religion is somehow just as good as the others. By doing so, you’re saying that murder is just as good as non-murder. Why would you do this is you weren’t a terrible person?

The train is fine, the train is fine.

This line has never been clever or funny, but you keep saying it.

Muslims, who are people and are like any other group, have their benefits, as evident by their friendships, relationships, interactions, and experiences with non-Muslims in our great land.

Those aren’t benefits. Are you suggesting that people never had friendships or relationships here BEFORE you started bringing in people who think slaughtering innocent people is the greatest thing a person can do?

There were living their lives in the manner they wanted to prior to European jackbooting and murder.

And you’d estimate that over 90% of them were engaged in manual labor, wouldn’t you?
The metric, of course, was for Africans, as human beings, to pursue their own ways of life through life, liberty, and property.

They didn’t really have liberty before the Europeans showed up. Their life expectancy was probably lower too, so less life, even.

But that isn’t a “metric” anyway. It’s just you re-stating your stupid point.
Actually, you are being dishonest here, as it is a fact that apostasy among Muslims is a highly debatable topic, as evident by my reference through Infogalactic.

Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.

But why don’t you go ahead and tell me what you think is an acceptable percentage of peopleto support murdering innocent people? Because people who believe that make our society SO much better.

“Generally speaking, it’s rare for two phenomena to be of equal quality. Whenever someone says things are equally good, they’re just advocating for something they know is worse, and just don’t want to admit it.”

Except comparing religions and unequivocally stating that one is “better” than another is based on a personal opinion, not objective truth. Remember, the major religions are based on praying God and teaching methods to pray to that God. The main purpose is to SET your belief in some supernatural livings which you cannot see or comprehend in your mind. How do you quantify something as abstract as God or religion? The complexity of this question lies in its subjectivity to its context.

“This is incorrect. I have no faith in the tenets of Buddhism, for example. But I can still tell that it is better than Islam, due in large part to Buddha not telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, you can offer your own preference, which again is your opinion.

“That’s true, in the same sense that it’s only my opinion that killing innocent people (which Muhammad advocated and practiced) is worse than NOT killing innocent people (which Jesus practiced).”

You changed the goalposts here. We were not talking about the killing of innocent people, we were talking about the killing of those who mocked God, which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence. Contradictions, indeed.

Besides, you know it to be true that there were those Christians and Muslims who perverted the faith by targeting innocent people to be killed if they chose not to convert.

“Well, again, this only applies to non-believers. And non-believers don’t actually believe this is going to happen, so it’s not much of a threat to them. They’re not getting their heads chopped off, like Muhammad would do.”

Non-believers AND those who left the faith.

You really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

“Whereas, if I don’t believe a Muslim is going to chop my head off, and he decides he’s going to anyway, my head is coming off.”

No, because as the link I offered (infogalactic), what you are saying is not entirely accurately.

“I didn’t ignore it. I said that it was nice, but doesn’t change the fact that Muhammad REALLY DID chop off people’s heads for mocking him.”

Another moving of the goalposts. We were talking about Muhammad murdering those who mocked him, which included the Yahweh and God (Christian) also demanding that action to be followed. The “chopping off people’s heads” is an entirely different matter.

“Muhammad contradicts himself all the time. This is why Islam developed the concept of “abrogated” verses. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know about these, or is this more of your characteristic dishonesty.”

No, not all of the time. Regardless, Christianity or Judaism also contradicts itself. But of course you know that and are being dishonest when you neglect to admit this important fact.

“The fact that a murderous psychopath also sometimes says nice things doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a murderous psychopath, or that he advocated for murder at other times.”

That is a false characterization of Muhammad.

“On the other hand, Jesus said not to kill people, and also DIDN’T kill people, or tell others to kill people.”

“Unless you think non-murder is just as good as murder, Christianity is the clearly superior religion.”

Again, an opinion on your part.

“It only matters if you believe that. And if you leave the church, you don’t.”

Depends upon why that person left the church. He or she may still have faith in the religion, but not particular aspects of it. Thus, in this case, that person’s soul will suffer the consequences.

“They all pose a problem, because they are the ocean in which the terrorists swim. And they constantly whine about us doing the things we need to do to stop the terrorists. That’s why we weren’t investigating the most recent terrorist’s mosque. Because supposedly “good” Muslims whined about it.”

No, only a few pose a problem. You can’t be this stupid.

“And you’d estimate that over 90% of them were engaged in manual labor, wouldn’t you?”

In their own type of labor, free from the “invade the world, invite the world” European mindset.

“They didn’t really have liberty before the Europeans showed up. Their life expectancy was probably lower too, so less life, even.”

Of course Africans had liberty before the Europeans showed up. They lived in a society. They were “free” to pursue what they desired. Sure, there were conflicts and wars in Africa, but nonetheless they could make their own decisions. When the European came and enslaved them, they lost that basic freedom to choose. That is the metric here. Of course, you are being dishonest here.

“Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.”

No, the reference stated specifically that Muslims hold different opinions regarding apostasy. Clearly you did not carefully study it.

Except comparing religions and unequivocally stating that one is “better” than another is based on a personal opinion, not objective truth.

Already answered this. This is true in the same sense that it's only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.

How do you quantify something as abstract as God or religion?

Easy. When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it's worse than all the ones that DON'T advocate the murder of innocent people.

Unless you think murdering people is OK. Do you think that, Corvinus? Because, if so, why not just say it, and then we can be done here.

We were not talking about the killing of innocent people, we were talking about the killing of those who mocked God, which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Moreover, unlike Jesus, Muhammad ACTUALLY DID kill people who mocked him. The real, historical guy, who actually walked this planet. REALLY DID murder people who mocked him.

You are (stupidly) claiming that a murderer is just as good as a non-murderer, and expecting me to believe that.

Either you know that I am right, that Islam is worse, and you're just tying yourself into all kinds of knots because you refuse to admit it, or you have absolutely no moral compass, in which case, there's no point in talking to you anyway.

Besides, you know it to be true that there were those Christians and Muslims who perverted the faith by targeting innocent people to be killed if they chose not to convert.

Yes, but the difference is, with Christianity, it ACTUALLY IS a perversion. With Islam, it isn't.

which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people. Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.

Corvinus. Answer the question. If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says "Don't kill people." does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?

Of course, you will say it does, but it doesn't matter anyway, because killing people is OK if you're not white. Because you are a horrible, fundamentally dishonest person. Non-believers AND those who left the faith.

People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.

You really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

That site was written by Muslims, so of course everything in it is a lie. (They're very problematic people, you know.)

Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

No, not all of the time. Regardless, Christianity or Judaism also contradicts itself. But of course you know that and are being dishonest when you neglect to admit this important fact.

Do you know what an abrogated verse is, or not? Are you stupid, or a liar?

Because if you DO know what an abrogated verse is, then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.

That is not entirely accurate.

It is accurate, as that is clearly a parable. The words even come from a different character's mouth. Whereas Muhammad ACTUALLY TELLS HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL PEOPLE.

You can pretend that these things are equally bad if you want, but you know it's not true. You know that you are just lying because you want to bring in these savages, because you hate this country and want to make it worse.

Depends upon why that person left the church. He or she may still have faith in the religion, but not particular aspects of it. Thus, in this case, that person’s soul will suffer the consequences.

Given that Jesus never talked about a "church", or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.Again, an opinion on your part.

Well, yes. It is indeed my opinion that killing people is worse than not killing them. This is because I am a better person than you.

In their own type of labor, free from the “invade the world, invite the world” European mindset.

And that "type" would be "manual". As you know.

Also, it's funny how you called it a "European" mindset, when those Muslims you like so much invaded Africa first, and for longer.Of course Africans had liberty before the Europeans showed up. They lived in a society. They were “free” to pursue what they desired.

Well, they lived in a society and were just as "free" to pursue what they desired afterwards too.

Sure, there were conflicts and wars in Africa, but nonetheless they could make their own decisions.

Not the ones who got enslaved by other Africans.

When the European came and enslaved them, they lost that basic freedom to choose.

Large numbers of them were already enslaved. Dummy.

“Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.”

No, the reference stated specifically that Muslims hold different opinions regarding apostasy. Clearly you did not carefully study it.

Please explain how your statement proved what I said wrong. I'll say it again, if you need me to.

Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.

In what sense is that not true?

Corvinus. Are we about done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say? Could you just do me a favor and say "Murdering people is no worse than not murdering them.", so we can both just move on with our lives?

"Generally speaking, it’s rare for two phenomena to be of equal quality. Whenever someone says things are equally good, they’re just advocating for something they know is worse, and just don’t want to admit it."

Except comparing religions and unequivocally stating that one is "better" than another is based on a personal opinion, not objective truth. Remember, the major religions are based on praying God and teaching methods to pray to that God. The main purpose is to SET your belief in some supernatural livings which you cannot see or comprehend in your mind. How do you quantify something as abstract as God or religion? The complexity of this question lies in its subjectivity to its context.

"This is incorrect. I have no faith in the tenets of Buddhism, for example. But I can still tell that it is better than Islam, due in large part to Buddha not telling his followers to kill innocent people."

No, you can offer your own preference, which again is your opinion.

"That’s true, in the same sense that it’s only my opinion that killing innocent people (which Muhammad advocated and practiced) is worse than NOT killing innocent people (which Jesus practiced)."

You changed the goalposts here. We were not talking about the killing of innocent people, we were talking about the killing of those who mocked God, which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence. Contradictions, indeed.

Besides, you know it to be true that there were those Christians and Muslims who perverted the faith by targeting innocent people to be killed if they chose not to convert.

"Well, again, this only applies to non-believers. And non-believers don’t actually believe this is going to happen, so it’s not much of a threat to them. They’re not getting their heads chopped off, like Muhammad would do."

Non-believers AND those who left the faith.

You really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/

"Whereas, if I don’t believe a Muslim is going to chop my head off, and he decides he’s going to anyway, my head is coming off."

No, because as the link I offered (infogalactic), what you are saying is not entirely accurately.

"I didn’t ignore it. I said that it was nice, but doesn’t change the fact that Muhammad REALLY DID chop off people’s heads for mocking him."

Another moving of the goalposts. We were talking about Muhammad murdering those who mocked him, which included the Yahweh and God (Christian) also demanding that action to be followed. The "chopping off people's heads" is an entirely different matter.

"Muhammad contradicts himself all the time. This is why Islam developed the concept of “abrogated” verses. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know about these, or is this more of your characteristic dishonesty."

No, not all of the time. Regardless, Christianity or Judaism also contradicts itself. But of course you know that and are being dishonest when you neglect to admit this important fact.

"The fact that a murderous psychopath also sometimes says nice things doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a murderous psychopath, or that he advocated for murder at other times."

That is a false characterization of Muhammad.

"On the other hand, Jesus said not to kill people, and also DIDN’T kill people, or tell others to kill people."

"Unless you think non-murder is just as good as murder, Christianity is the clearly superior religion."

Again, an opinion on your part.

"It only matters if you believe that. And if you leave the church, you don’t."

Depends upon why that person left the church. He or she may still have faith in the religion, but not particular aspects of it. Thus, in this case, that person's soul will suffer the consequences.

"They all pose a problem, because they are the ocean in which the terrorists swim. And they constantly whine about us doing the things we need to do to stop the terrorists. That’s why we weren’t investigating the most recent terrorist’s mosque. Because supposedly “good” Muslims whined about it."

No, only a few pose a problem. You can't be this stupid.

"And you’d estimate that over 90% of them were engaged in manual labor, wouldn’t you?"

In their own type of labor, free from the "invade the world, invite the world" European mindset.

"They didn’t really have liberty before the Europeans showed up. Their life expectancy was probably lower too, so less life, even."

Of course Africans had liberty before the Europeans showed up. They lived in a society. They were "free" to pursue what they desired. Sure, there were conflicts and wars in Africa, but nonetheless they could make their own decisions. When the European came and enslaved them, they lost that basic freedom to choose. That is the metric here. Of course, you are being dishonest here.

"Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy."

No, the reference stated specifically that Muslims hold different opinions regarding apostasy. Clearly you did not carefully study it.

Except comparing religions and unequivocally stating that one is “better” than another is based on a personal opinion, not objective truth.

Already answered this. This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.

How do you quantify something as abstract as God or religion?

Easy. When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.

Unless you think murdering people is OK. Do you think that, Corvinus? Because, if so, why not just say it, and then we can be done here.

We were not talking about the killing of innocent people, we were talking about the killing of those who mocked God, which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Moreover, unlike Jesus, Muhammad ACTUALLY DID kill people who mocked him. The real, historical guy, who actually walked this planet. REALLY DID murder people who mocked him.

You are (stupidly) claiming that a murderer is just as good as a non-murderer, and expecting me to believe that.

Either you know that I am right, that Islam is worse, and you’re just tying yourself into all kinds of knots because you refuse to admit it, or you have absolutely no moral compass, in which case, there’s no point in talking to you anyway.

Besides, you know it to be true that there were those Christians and Muslims who perverted the faith by targeting innocent people to be killed if they chose not to convert.

Yes, but the difference is, with Christianity, it ACTUALLY IS a perversion. With Islam, it isn’t.

which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people. Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.

Corvinus. Answer the question. If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?

Of course, you will say it does, but it doesn’t matter anyway, because killing people is OK if you’re not white. Because you are a horrible, fundamentally dishonest person.
Non-believers AND those who left the faith.

People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.

You really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

That site was written by Muslims, so of course everything in it is a lie. (They’re very problematic people, you know.)

Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. ” have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

No, not all of the time. Regardless, Christianity or Judaism also contradicts itself. But of course you know that and are being dishonest when you neglect to admit this important fact.

Do you know what an abrogated verse is, or not? Are you stupid, or a liar?

Because if you DO know what an abrogated verse is, then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.

That is not entirely accurate.

It is accurate, as that is clearly a parable. The words even come from a different character’s mouth. Whereas Muhammad ACTUALLY TELLS HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL PEOPLE.

You can pretend that these things are equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true. You know that you are just lying because you want to bring in these savages, because you hate this country and want to make it worse.

Depends upon why that person left the church. He or she may still have faith in the religion, but not particular aspects of it. Thus, in this case, that person’s soul will suffer the consequences.

Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.
Again, an opinion on your part.

Well, yes. It is indeed my opinion that killing people is worse than not killing them. This is because I am a better person than you.

In their own type of labor, free from the “invade the world, invite the world” European mindset.

And that “type” would be “manual”. As you know.

Also, it’s funny how you called it a “European” mindset, when those Muslims you like so much invaded Africa first, and for longer.
Of course Africans had liberty before the Europeans showed up. They lived in a society. They were “free” to pursue what they desired.

Well, they lived in a society and were just as “free” to pursue what they desired afterwards too.

Sure, there were conflicts and wars in Africa, but nonetheless they could make their own decisions.

Not the ones who got enslaved by other Africans.

When the European came and enslaved them, they lost that basic freedom to choose.

Large numbers of them were already enslaved. Dummy.

“Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.”

No, the reference stated specifically that Muslims hold different opinions regarding apostasy. Clearly you did not carefully study it.

Please explain how your statement proved what I said wrong. I’ll say it again, if you need me to.

Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.

In what sense is that not true?

Corvinus. Are we about done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say? Could you just do me a favor and say “Murdering people is no worse than not murdering them.”, so we can both just move on with our lives?

“This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.”

Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

“When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.”

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

“No, nobody read Jesus and heard him say to kill people. Ever.”

You’re not being accurate here.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27) This prophecy can be expanded to include ALL who were deemed non-believers or disbelievers.

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

And, there was this link I provided, which clearly you did not comprehend.

Regardless, the fact remains that religion has been used as a weapon of violence and war by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Why not condone ALL of those adherents who in the past and at present pervert the faith, especially when they make the obnoxious claim that “my faiths is better than any and all faiths”.

“Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, Judaism and Christianity also tell their followers to kill innocent people—those who are heathens, or infidels, or those who left the Church.

“Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.”

Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity. In the beginning, Muhammad sought to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders in Arabia. His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people. His insistence that his faith was “better” than those around him—an attack on their religion—and subsequent brutality was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity disparaging, at best, and ordering the killing of, at worst, any and all opposing faiths.

“If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?”

You mean if the holy book for the three major religions we have discussed, at various points, has contradictions like “Don’t kill people” and “Kill those who are non-believers or disbelievers”.

“People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.”

You mean non-believers in some of their tenets they oppose, or non-believers by no longer abiding by any of their principles. In either case, God judges them.

“Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.”

That site was written by Muslim haters, so of course everything in it is a lie. See, two can play your silly stupid fame. Now, the point of view of that website is from a skeptical non-believer. So, naturally, there is going to be an extreme bias here. When a religion that is 1,400 years old, with a complex ideology based on ancient sacred texts, with a couple billion adherents, and multiple if not competing branches, sects, and movements, complete objectivity is thrown out the window. We mortals are therefore content with the low hanging fruit of bias, innate prejudice, and partiality. That means there will be deception based on false translations and other trickery by those with a particular axe to grind, which in the end makes it moot as to what religion is “better” or “worse”.

“ then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.”

Of course it means something to the followers. YOU are the one placing no value on it.

You can pretend that these things are not equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true.

“Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of hope and love for ALL believers. This community was called His Church. The Church that He founded is the Catholic Church, which has a formal structure established by Him and which is perpetuated under His authority and protection.

“Large numbers of them were already enslaved.”

Some Africans were enslaved. But most Africans remained free. And you do realize that African slavery is different than European slavery, right?

Would you like to know more, citizen, or remain ignorant?

So, are you done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say other than your personal opinion?

But I don’t get that people who are pro-white aren’t crazy about them. (Okay they are crazy about them but not in a good way).

The explanation is pretty simple, at least to me.

The alt-right is broad grouping of people who would not ordinarily be mixing. We're all here, in one big hot mess, on "those websites" because the social taboo on discussing racial and gender differences is so overwhelming that no honest discussion can be had elsewhere.

Many pro-whites, like Richard Spencer are modernists by worldview. Some even go so far as want the socialism and everything they see around them minus the wonders of diversity that the West has imported in the last 60 years or so. They want to be atheist/agnostics, they want to not worry if cousin turns out to be a little (or a lot) loose in sexual side, they want their own sexual habits to be unencumbered, they want their weekends free, they want the government to cover them in their old age.

In their defense, they do see that modernism not working, or otherwise they won't be pro-white. They willingly address one of the worst problems to date of modernism. That is, European societies complete lack of social cohesion to the point where they invite and pay for the barbarians to live next door.

However, pro-whites won't go any farther than that in their thinking. They like the rest of modernism, so it's hard to do anything but say "Yippee for white DNA!" "Westerners are free!" "We're so advanced that we're open on the gay thing" "And have more babies!" (<--This would be the sum of Richard Spencer's thinking on the subject, a single man, as far as I can tell.)

Meanwhile, anyone who has strong religious faith (including those dreaded Jews) are having the large families. But that religious faith requires so much more than their comfortable modernism does. Modernism and Christianity are view points on the world that are inherently at odds.

So rather look, in security, to see if there's something there in that Christianity thing, all the pro-whites can do is snip at it and be little crazy themselves about it. Christianity, even executed at far less than perfection, challenges the core of who they think they are.

It's been my contention for a while that alt-whites (pro-whites) will have to move towards Christianity, even if it's merely to drop their hostility to it. Modernism sterilizes and atomizes our society. The barbarians are being let loose because 2000 years of the truths and rituals that create social cohesion are being ignored or angrily rejected in the name of comfort and ego.

Turn-the-other-cheekism ruined my life and I’ve looked close enough at Christianity, as a Methodist minister’s son to reject it for good as the Hebrew End Times delusion cult it began as. (Then again I am only a moderate in terms of white identity politics. Very very moderate. I wouldn’t call myself a WN.)

Turn-the-other-cheekism ruined my life and I've looked close enough at Christianity, as a Methodist minister's son to reject it for good as the Hebrew End Times delusion cult it began as. (Then again I am only a moderate in terms of white identity politics. Very very moderate. I wouldn't call myself a WN.)

as a Methodist minister’s son

Part of the problem, right here.

I have come around to thinking it’s the least worst of the big three monotheistic religions, on a societal level at the very least.

Getting SJW types to denounce and attack the phrase “it’s okay to be white” is a brilliant PR tactic. And this is probably SJW’s biggest weakness–the individual incentives of their activists ensure that there will be a big visible overreaction to this and many other completely sensible and inoffensive statements and slogans. I wonder if Trump would be in the White House today if it hasn’t somehow become mandatory for everyone on the left to denounce people for saying that all lives mattered.

Except comparing religions and unequivocally stating that one is “better” than another is based on a personal opinion, not objective truth.

Already answered this. This is true in the same sense that it's only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.

How do you quantify something as abstract as God or religion?

Easy. When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it's worse than all the ones that DON'T advocate the murder of innocent people.

Unless you think murdering people is OK. Do you think that, Corvinus? Because, if so, why not just say it, and then we can be done here.

We were not talking about the killing of innocent people, we were talking about the killing of those who mocked God, which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Moreover, unlike Jesus, Muhammad ACTUALLY DID kill people who mocked him. The real, historical guy, who actually walked this planet. REALLY DID murder people who mocked him.

You are (stupidly) claiming that a murderer is just as good as a non-murderer, and expecting me to believe that.

Either you know that I am right, that Islam is worse, and you're just tying yourself into all kinds of knots because you refuse to admit it, or you have absolutely no moral compass, in which case, there's no point in talking to you anyway.

Besides, you know it to be true that there were those Christians and Muslims who perverted the faith by targeting innocent people to be killed if they chose not to convert.

Yes, but the difference is, with Christianity, it ACTUALLY IS a perversion. With Islam, it isn't.

which was established that the Muslim and Christian faith have passages in their holy books that informed followers to both punish those mockers and to refrain from violence.

Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people. Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.

Corvinus. Answer the question. If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says "Don't kill people." does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?

Of course, you will say it does, but it doesn't matter anyway, because killing people is OK if you're not white. Because you are a horrible, fundamentally dishonest person. Non-believers AND those who left the faith.

People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.

You really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

That site was written by Muslims, so of course everything in it is a lie. (They're very problematic people, you know.)

Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

No, not all of the time. Regardless, Christianity or Judaism also contradicts itself. But of course you know that and are being dishonest when you neglect to admit this important fact.

Do you know what an abrogated verse is, or not? Are you stupid, or a liar?

Because if you DO know what an abrogated verse is, then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.

That is not entirely accurate.

It is accurate, as that is clearly a parable. The words even come from a different character's mouth. Whereas Muhammad ACTUALLY TELLS HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL PEOPLE.

You can pretend that these things are equally bad if you want, but you know it's not true. You know that you are just lying because you want to bring in these savages, because you hate this country and want to make it worse.

Depends upon why that person left the church. He or she may still have faith in the religion, but not particular aspects of it. Thus, in this case, that person’s soul will suffer the consequences.

Given that Jesus never talked about a "church", or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.Again, an opinion on your part.

Well, yes. It is indeed my opinion that killing people is worse than not killing them. This is because I am a better person than you.

In their own type of labor, free from the “invade the world, invite the world” European mindset.

And that "type" would be "manual". As you know.

Also, it's funny how you called it a "European" mindset, when those Muslims you like so much invaded Africa first, and for longer.Of course Africans had liberty before the Europeans showed up. They lived in a society. They were “free” to pursue what they desired.

Well, they lived in a society and were just as "free" to pursue what they desired afterwards too.

Sure, there were conflicts and wars in Africa, but nonetheless they could make their own decisions.

Not the ones who got enslaved by other Africans.

When the European came and enslaved them, they lost that basic freedom to choose.

Large numbers of them were already enslaved. Dummy.

“Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.”

No, the reference stated specifically that Muslims hold different opinions regarding apostasy. Clearly you did not carefully study it.

Please explain how your statement proved what I said wrong. I'll say it again, if you need me to.

Your reference includes a map of the Muslim world, which shows that nearly all of it has execution or imprisonment as a penalty for apostasy, as well as a chart showing the results of a poll on how many Muslims favor execution for apostasy.

In what sense is that not true?

Corvinus. Are we about done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say? Could you just do me a favor and say "Murdering people is no worse than not murdering them.", so we can both just move on with our lives?

“Already answered this.”

Which was a personal opinion, not objective truth.

“This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.”

Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

“When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.”

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

“No, nobody read Jesus and heard him say to kill people. Ever.”

You’re not being accurate here.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27) This prophecy can be expanded to include ALL who were deemed non-believers or disbelievers.

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

And, there was this link I provided, which clearly you did not comprehend.

Regardless, the fact remains that religion has been used as a weapon of violence and war by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Why not condone ALL of those adherents who in the past and at present pervert the faith, especially when they make the obnoxious claim that “my faiths is better than any and all faiths”.

“Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, Judaism and Christianity also tell their followers to kill innocent people—those who are heathens, or infidels, or those who left the Church.

“Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.”

Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity. In the beginning, Muhammad sought to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders in Arabia. His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people. His insistence that his faith was “better” than those around him—an attack on their religion—and subsequent brutality was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity disparaging, at best, and ordering the killing of, at worst, any and all opposing faiths.

“If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?”

You mean if the holy book for the three major religions we have discussed, at various points, has contradictions like “Don’t kill people” and “Kill those who are non-believers or disbelievers”.

“People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.”

You mean non-believers in some of their tenets they oppose, or non-believers by no longer abiding by any of their principles. In either case, God judges them.

“Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.”

That site was written by Muslim haters, so of course everything in it is a lie. See, two can play your silly stupid fame. Now, the point of view of that website is from a skeptical non-believer. So, naturally, there is going to be an extreme bias here. When a religion that is 1,400 years old, with a complex ideology based on ancient sacred texts, with a couple billion adherents, and multiple if not competing branches, sects, and movements, complete objectivity is thrown out the window. We mortals are therefore content with the low hanging fruit of bias, innate prejudice, and partiality. That means there will be deception based on false translations and other trickery by those with a particular axe to grind, which in the end makes it moot as to what religion is “better” or “worse”.

“ then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.”

Of course it means something to the followers. YOU are the one placing no value on it.

You can pretend that these things are not equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true.

“Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of hope and love for ALL believers. This community was called His Church. The Church that He founded is the Catholic Church, which has a formal structure established by Him and which is perpetuated under His authority and protection.

“Large numbers of them were already enslaved.”

Some Africans were enslaved. But most Africans remained free. And you do realize that African slavery is different than European slavery, right?

Would you like to know more, citizen, or remain ignorant?

So, are you done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say other than your personal opinion?

Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.

I suppose you have a different opinion. Or, maybe, you just want to pretend you have a different opinion, because otherwise you would have to admit you are simply wrong.

Either way. It doesn't matter.
Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.
Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity.

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.

I'm not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.

His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people.

Once again. Jesus explicitly said NOT to, and never said that his followers SHOULD kill people.

Muhammad PERSONALLY ORDERED murders of this nature.

You know what? Fuck this.

This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it's a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.

If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn't have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.

But you do. You CAN'T tell the truth about it, and the worst part is, you KNOW you're lying.

Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that's really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.

Here, Corvinus. I'll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren't worthless scum.

Which person is worse, morally?

Person A, who tells a parable about a king, where the king orders someone killed;

Person B, who ACTUALLY ORDERS the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

You have one chance to answer this question honestly.

Just say "Person A" or "Person B".

If you can be honest, I will be willing to accept the fact that there might possibly be some real merit to any arguments in defense of Islam and Muslims. If you are incapable of honesty, I will accept this as evidence that nobody who wants to defend Islam can ever tell the truth, which indicates that there is no real defense of it.

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

“Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.”

Exactly, your opinion. And in the case of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, it has been proven that their religious founders and/or leaders and/or texts have ordered them to murder “innocent people”. Each religion has this track record.

“Either way. It doesn’t matter.”

Of course it matters that you being subjective here.

“But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.”

No, it was all of those religious, founders or otherwise, who ordered their adherents to murder non-believers.

“No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.”

We already covered this ground. Two people from different religions will naturally claim that their religion is “better”. In the end, it is a personal opinion, not objective truth. “

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.”

No that is other than accurate.

“I’m not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.”

You have repeatedly neglected to consider the context of the matter, as well as the history of Christians and Jews also being ordered to murder innocent people. You have a worm tongue.

“This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it’s a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.”

So are you going to try to murder me, an innocent person who merely questions your thought process?

“If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn’t have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.”

Of course most Muslims are decent people and are not lying about their religion. They are practicing it just like Christians and Jews. Why do you despise personal liberty when it comes to faith?

“Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that’s really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.”

The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Again, you really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/

“If you can be honest, I will be willing to accept the fact that there might possibly be some real merit to any arguments in defense of Islam and Muslims.”

Without me catering to your whim, you should be able to accept the fact.

That is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. I may not agree with him a whole lot, and I would agree even with less a David Duke or a William Pierce (to say the least), but it's just obvious that these people are indeed pro-white.

Yes, you'll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it's just a matter of plain truth that you're not going to be helping those poor whites because they're white so it's silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

And on Sunday morning, I will be at a Latin Mass with my family and friends.

As things stand today, the Catholic church is part of the problem many times more than it is part of the solution. It needn't be so, but it clearly is.

Whom – of the two – you consider to be on your side will say a lot about you.

The anti-white status quo is not going to be overthrown by pretending those who challenge it are "evil."

it’s just obvious that these people are indeed pro-white.

Are they? And what, exactly, have Richard Spencer, David Duke, and William Pierce done for whites? How have they improved the lives of whites, especially the economically downscale ones who are suffering from the ill effects of globalization, mass immigration, and automation?

Yes, you’ll be doing good in W. Virginia, but it’s just a matter of plain truth that you’re not going to be helping those poor whites because they’re white so it’s silly to claim it as a pro-white act.

1. I am not a white supremacist. I am a “citizenist.” I care about helping my fellow Americans, period. Even though I have a dim view of Hispanics and blacks in general, I still mean well for those among them who are of good will and are productive citizens.

2. It’s not an accident that the vast majority of families I have helped are white, and in particular are West Virginia whites.

3. Even if number 2 were not the case, yours is a bizarre (and sad) argument. Spencer and co. have not lifted a finger (literally) to help other whites, but they say that they are pro-white, so they are in your view. Meanwhile, I have objectively, measurably, and physically helped poor white families (and advocate policies that would help them), but because I am not a white supremacist or a cartoon neo-Nazi, I am not pro-white?

“This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.”

Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

“When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.”

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

“No, nobody read Jesus and heard him say to kill people. Ever.”

You’re not being accurate here.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27) This prophecy can be expanded to include ALL who were deemed non-believers or disbelievers.

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

And, there was this link I provided, which clearly you did not comprehend.

Regardless, the fact remains that religion has been used as a weapon of violence and war by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Why not condone ALL of those adherents who in the past and at present pervert the faith, especially when they make the obnoxious claim that “my faiths is better than any and all faiths”.

“Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, Judaism and Christianity also tell their followers to kill innocent people—those who are heathens, or infidels, or those who left the Church.

“Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.”

Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity. In the beginning, Muhammad sought to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders in Arabia. His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people. His insistence that his faith was “better” than those around him—an attack on their religion—and subsequent brutality was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity disparaging, at best, and ordering the killing of, at worst, any and all opposing faiths.

“If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?”

You mean if the holy book for the three major religions we have discussed, at various points, has contradictions like “Don’t kill people” and “Kill those who are non-believers or disbelievers”.

“People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.”

You mean non-believers in some of their tenets they oppose, or non-believers by no longer abiding by any of their principles. In either case, God judges them.

“Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.”

That site was written by Muslim haters, so of course everything in it is a lie. See, two can play your silly stupid fame. Now, the point of view of that website is from a skeptical non-believer. So, naturally, there is going to be an extreme bias here. When a religion that is 1,400 years old, with a complex ideology based on ancient sacred texts, with a couple billion adherents, and multiple if not competing branches, sects, and movements, complete objectivity is thrown out the window. We mortals are therefore content with the low hanging fruit of bias, innate prejudice, and partiality. That means there will be deception based on false translations and other trickery by those with a particular axe to grind, which in the end makes it moot as to what religion is “better” or “worse”.

“ then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.”

Of course it means something to the followers. YOU are the one placing no value on it.

You can pretend that these things are not equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true.

“Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of hope and love for ALL believers. This community was called His Church. The Church that He founded is the Catholic Church, which has a formal structure established by Him and which is perpetuated under His authority and protection.

“Large numbers of them were already enslaved.”

Some Africans were enslaved. But most Africans remained free. And you do realize that African slavery is different than European slavery, right?

Would you like to know more, citizen, or remain ignorant?

So, are you done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say other than your personal opinion?

Which was a personal opinion, not objective truth.

Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.

I suppose you have a different opinion. Or, maybe, you just want to pretend you have a different opinion, because otherwise you would have to admit you are simply wrong.

Either way. It doesn’t matter.
Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.
Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity.

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.

I’m not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.

His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people.

Once again. Jesus explicitly said NOT to, and never said that his followers SHOULD kill people.

Muhammad PERSONALLY ORDERED murders of this nature.

You know what? Fuck this.

This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it’s a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.

If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn’t have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.

But you do. You CAN’T tell the truth about it, and the worst part is, you KNOW you’re lying.

Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that’s really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.

“This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.”

Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

“When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.”

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

“No, nobody read Jesus and heard him say to kill people. Ever.”

You’re not being accurate here.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27) This prophecy can be expanded to include ALL who were deemed non-believers or disbelievers.

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

And, there was this link I provided, which clearly you did not comprehend.

Regardless, the fact remains that religion has been used as a weapon of violence and war by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Why not condone ALL of those adherents who in the past and at present pervert the faith, especially when they make the obnoxious claim that “my faiths is better than any and all faiths”.

“Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, Judaism and Christianity also tell their followers to kill innocent people—those who are heathens, or infidels, or those who left the Church.

“Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.”

Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity. In the beginning, Muhammad sought to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders in Arabia. His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people. His insistence that his faith was “better” than those around him—an attack on their religion—and subsequent brutality was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity disparaging, at best, and ordering the killing of, at worst, any and all opposing faiths.

“If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?”

You mean if the holy book for the three major religions we have discussed, at various points, has contradictions like “Don’t kill people” and “Kill those who are non-believers or disbelievers”.

“People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.”

You mean non-believers in some of their tenets they oppose, or non-believers by no longer abiding by any of their principles. In either case, God judges them.

“Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.”

That site was written by Muslim haters, so of course everything in it is a lie. See, two can play your silly stupid fame. Now, the point of view of that website is from a skeptical non-believer. So, naturally, there is going to be an extreme bias here. When a religion that is 1,400 years old, with a complex ideology based on ancient sacred texts, with a couple billion adherents, and multiple if not competing branches, sects, and movements, complete objectivity is thrown out the window. We mortals are therefore content with the low hanging fruit of bias, innate prejudice, and partiality. That means there will be deception based on false translations and other trickery by those with a particular axe to grind, which in the end makes it moot as to what religion is “better” or “worse”.

“ then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.”

Of course it means something to the followers. YOU are the one placing no value on it.

You can pretend that these things are not equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true.

“Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of hope and love for ALL believers. This community was called His Church. The Church that He founded is the Catholic Church, which has a formal structure established by Him and which is perpetuated under His authority and protection.

“Large numbers of them were already enslaved.”

Some Africans were enslaved. But most Africans remained free. And you do realize that African slavery is different than European slavery, right?

Would you like to know more, citizen, or remain ignorant?

So, are you done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say other than your personal opinion?

Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.

Which person is worse, morally?

Person A, who tells a parable about a king, where the king orders someone killed;

Person B, who ACTUALLY ORDERS the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

You have one chance to answer this question honestly.

Just say “Person A” or “Person B”.

If you can be honest, I will be willing to accept the fact that there might possibly be some real merit to any arguments in defense of Islam and Muslims. If you are incapable of honesty, I will accept this as evidence that nobody who wants to defend Islam can ever tell the truth, which indicates that there is no real defense of it.

“This is true in the same sense that it’s only a personal opinion that murdering a whole bunch of people is just as good as NOT murdering a whole bunch of people.”

Except the founders and/or adherents of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have justified the murdering of people in the name of their religion, whether it be for acts considered blasphemous or for people who refused to convert.

“When one religion advocates the murder of innocent people, it’s worse than all the ones that DON’T advocate the murder of innocent people.”

Again, the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have passages which advocate the murdering of “innocent people”, whether it be alleged heathens or infidels.

“No, nobody read Jesus and heard him say to kill people. Ever.”

You’re not being accurate here.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27) This prophecy can be expanded to include ALL who were deemed non-believers or disbelievers.

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

And, there was this link I provided, which clearly you did not comprehend.

Regardless, the fact remains that religion has been used as a weapon of violence and war by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Why not condone ALL of those adherents who in the past and at present pervert the faith, especially when they make the obnoxious claim that “my faiths is better than any and all faiths”.

“Yes, but only Islam ALSO has Muhammad telling his followers to kill innocent people.”

No, Judaism and Christianity also tell their followers to kill innocent people—those who are heathens, or infidels, or those who left the Church.

“Plus, HE KILLED PEOPLE.”

Of course people were killed when people mocked Islam, as when people were killed when people mocked Judaism and Christianity. In the beginning, Muhammad sought to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders in Arabia. His message of “believe in the messenger or suffer the consequences” was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity—they all murdered innocent people. His insistence that his faith was “better” than those around him—an attack on their religion—and subsequent brutality was NO different than the adherents of Judaism or Christianity disparaging, at best, and ordering the killing of, at worst, any and all opposing faiths.

“If a mass murderer, at some point in his life, also says “Don’t kill people.” does that change the fact that he is a mass murderer?”

You mean if the holy book for the three major religions we have discussed, at various points, has contradictions like “Don’t kill people” and “Kill those who are non-believers or disbelievers”.

“People who left the faith become non-believers, you disingenuous pile of shit.”

You mean non-believers in some of their tenets they oppose, or non-believers by no longer abiding by any of their principles. In either case, God judges them.

“Here is from the biography of Muhammad, accepted as genuine by all mainstream Muslims, worldwide.”

That site was written by Muslim haters, so of course everything in it is a lie. See, two can play your silly stupid fame. Now, the point of view of that website is from a skeptical non-believer. So, naturally, there is going to be an extreme bias here. When a religion that is 1,400 years old, with a complex ideology based on ancient sacred texts, with a couple billion adherents, and multiple if not competing branches, sects, and movements, complete objectivity is thrown out the window. We mortals are therefore content with the low hanging fruit of bias, innate prejudice, and partiality. That means there will be deception based on false translations and other trickery by those with a particular axe to grind, which in the end makes it moot as to what religion is “better” or “worse”.

“ then you know that just finding one peaceful statement in the Quran means literally nothing.”

Of course it means something to the followers. YOU are the one placing no value on it.

You can pretend that these things are not equally bad if you want, but you know it’s not true.

“Given that Jesus never talked about a “church”, or set one up, that is not an accurate statement.”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of hope and love for ALL believers. This community was called His Church. The Church that He founded is the Catholic Church, which has a formal structure established by Him and which is perpetuated under His authority and protection.

“Large numbers of them were already enslaved.”

Some Africans were enslaved. But most Africans remained free. And you do realize that African slavery is different than European slavery, right?

Would you like to know more, citizen, or remain ignorant?

So, are you done here? I mean, do you have anything more to say other than your personal opinion?

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

“Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.”

Exactly, your opinion. And in the case of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, it has been proven that their religious founders and/or leaders and/or texts have ordered them to murder “innocent people”. Each religion has this track record.

“Either way. It doesn’t matter.”

Of course it matters that you being subjective here.

“But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.”

No, it was all of those religious, founders or otherwise, who ordered their adherents to murder non-believers.

“No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.”

We already covered this ground. Two people from different religions will naturally claim that their religion is “better”. In the end, it is a personal opinion, not objective truth. “

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.”

No that is other than accurate.

“I’m not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.”

You have repeatedly neglected to consider the context of the matter, as well as the history of Christians and Jews also being ordered to murder innocent people. You have a worm tongue.

“This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it’s a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.”

So are you going to try to murder me, an innocent person who merely questions your thought process?

“If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn’t have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.”

Of course most Muslims are decent people and are not lying about their religion. They are practicing it just like Christians and Jews. Why do you despise personal liberty when it comes to faith?

“Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that’s really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.”

The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Again, you really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

“Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.”

Exactly, your opinion. And in the case of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, it has been proven that their religious founders and/or leaders and/or texts have ordered them to murder “innocent people”. Each religion has this track record.

“Either way. It doesn’t matter.”

Of course it matters that you being subjective here.

“But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.”

No, it was all of those religious, founders or otherwise, who ordered their adherents to murder non-believers.

“No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.”

We already covered this ground. Two people from different religions will naturally claim that their religion is “better”. In the end, it is a personal opinion, not objective truth. “

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.”

No that is other than accurate.

“I’m not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.”

You have repeatedly neglected to consider the context of the matter, as well as the history of Christians and Jews also being ordered to murder innocent people. You have a worm tongue.

“This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it’s a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.”

So are you going to try to murder me, an innocent person who merely questions your thought process?

“If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn’t have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.”

Of course most Muslims are decent people and are not lying about their religion. They are practicing it just like Christians and Jews. Why do you despise personal liberty when it comes to faith?

“Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that’s really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.”

The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Again, you really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/

“If you can be honest, I will be willing to accept the fact that there might possibly be some real merit to any arguments in defense of Islam and Muslims.”

Without me catering to your whim, you should be able to accept the fact.

Why the hell are you replying to yourself, apparently carrying on some sort of argument?

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

“Yes. As I said. It is my 0pinion, which is based on my opinion that murdering innocent people is bad.”

Exactly, your opinion. And in the case of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, it has been proven that their religious founders and/or leaders and/or texts have ordered them to murder “innocent people”. Each religion has this track record.

“Either way. It doesn’t matter.”

Of course it matters that you being subjective here.

“But only the founder of Islam told his followers to. And only the founder of Islam ACTUALLY DID murder people. This is why only truly worthless people would ever pretend that Islam is good.”

No, it was all of those religious, founders or otherwise, who ordered their adherents to murder non-believers.

“No, not Christianity, because Christianity is good, and the other two are bad.”

We already covered this ground. Two people from different religions will naturally claim that their religion is “better”. In the end, it is a personal opinion, not objective truth. “

But, for the millionth time, Jesus told his followers NOT to kill people who mocked him. Muhammad DIRECTLY ORDERED these murders.”

No that is other than accurate.

“I’m not going to ask you again whether you think murdering people is worse than not murdering people. You know that it is. You are just justifying murder because you are a terrible human being.”

You have repeatedly neglected to consider the context of the matter, as well as the history of Christians and Jews also being ordered to murder innocent people. You have a worm tongue.

“This is why I hate you people. This is why I KNOW letting Muslims come here is a terrible idea. Because the only people who think it’s a GOOD idea are people like you, who are FUCKING INCAPABLE of being honest.”

So are you going to try to murder me, an innocent person who merely questions your thought process?

“If Muslims were decent people, you wouldn’t have to lie about their disgusting religion all the time.”

Of course most Muslims are decent people and are not lying about their religion. They are practicing it just like Christians and Jews. Why do you despise personal liberty when it comes to faith?

“Well, guess what? If the only people willing to defend Muslims are pathological liars like you, then that’s really all the evidence I need to know what garbage people they are, and how we need to keep them as far away from civilized people as possible.”

The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Again, you really need to be informed about the myths of Muhammad. You are ignorant on this subject.

http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/

“If you can be honest, I will be willing to accept the fact that there might possibly be some real merit to any arguments in defense of Islam and Muslims.”

Without me catering to your whim, you should be able to accept the fact.

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

OK, Corvinus. You had your chance.

And you blew it. All you had to do was just answer a VERY SIMPLE question, and you couldn’t.

You have proven to me that the only way to defend Islam is to refuse to answer questions honestly. Therefore, there is clearly no honest defense of Islam.

I will now re-dedicate my life to increasing the suffering of any adherents of the Islamic faith that I can, in any way that is legally available to me.

And all because you just couldn’t answer a question, and preferred to play stupid word games.

"You have proven to me that the only way to defend Islam is to refuse to answer questions honestly.
Therefore, there is clearly no honest defense of Islam."

From the start you had your mind made up. I wasn't going to fall for your little trap.

Now, worm tongue, what specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

"I will now re-dedicate my life to increasing the suffering of any adherents of the Islamic faith that I can..."

You were already doing it anyways, no need to announce it to the world of your further commitment. The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

“Here, Corvinus. I’ll give you one chance. One chance to convince me that all Muslims and all of their defenders aren’t worthless scum.”

What specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

OK, Corvinus. You had your chance.

And you blew it. All you had to do was just answer a VERY SIMPLE question, and you couldn't.

You have proven to me that the only way to defend Islam is to refuse to answer questions honestly. Therefore, there is clearly no honest defense of Islam.

I will now re-dedicate my life to increasing the suffering of any adherents of the Islamic faith that I can, in any way that is legally available to me.

And all because you just couldn't answer a question, and preferred to play stupid word games.

“You have proven to me that the only way to defend Islam is to refuse to answer questions honestly.
Therefore, there is clearly no honest defense of Islam.”

From the start you had your mind made up. I wasn’t going to fall for your little trap.

Now, worm tongue, what specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

“I will now re-dedicate my life to increasing the suffering of any adherents of the Islamic faith that I can…”

You were already doing it anyways, no need to announce it to the world of your further commitment. The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

What does it tell you about yourself that you consider it a "trap" for me to ask you whether you think murder is worse than telling a story? For decent human beings, this is a simple and unambiguous answer.
Now, worm tongue, what specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Well, you know what? One of the things I know, from long experience, is that defenders of Islam NEVER tell the truth about it. Ask them a straightforward, point-blank question, and they just refuse to answer.

You know what this tells me? It tells me they KNOW Islam is a shitty religion, and that all decent people sbould hate it. Because if they didn't know that, and were just misguided, or I was just wrong, they wouldn't do that. They'd just tell the truth.

But they don't. They lie. Which proves that they KNOW that they're wrong, and they KNOW that Islam is indefensible. Which, in turn, proves that they only want to bring more Muslims here because they hate western civilization and want to make everyone in it suffer.

"You have proven to me that the only way to defend Islam is to refuse to answer questions honestly.
Therefore, there is clearly no honest defense of Islam."

From the start you had your mind made up. I wasn't going to fall for your little trap.

Now, worm tongue, what specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

"I will now re-dedicate my life to increasing the suffering of any adherents of the Islamic faith that I can..."

You were already doing it anyways, no need to announce it to the world of your further commitment. The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

I wasn’t going to fall for your little trap.

What does it tell you about yourself that you consider it a “trap” for me to ask you whether you think murder is worse than telling a story? For decent human beings, this is a simple and unambiguous answer.
Now, worm tongue, what specific event or instance are you referring to that Muhammad actually ordered the murder of a real, living, innocent person?

The problem here is that you have already made up your mind and are completely impervious to alternative facts that either contradict or challenge or call into question your claims.

Well, you know what? One of the things I know, from long experience, is that defenders of Islam NEVER tell the truth about it. Ask them a straightforward, point-blank question, and they just refuse to answer.

You know what this tells me? It tells me they KNOW Islam is a shitty religion, and that all decent people sbould hate it. Because if they didn’t know that, and were just misguided, or I was just wrong, they wouldn’t do that. They’d just tell the truth.

But they don’t. They lie. Which proves that they KNOW that they’re wrong, and they KNOW that Islam is indefensible. Which, in turn, proves that they only want to bring more Muslims here because they hate western civilization and want to make everyone in it suffer.

The source you listed states specifically “Names in bold indicate that the only reason why the sources indicate Muhammad wanted them to be killed or threatened with death was because they had mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him, or to extort economic gain, or to destroy idolatry or rival prophets. All others may have been killed for additional reasons such as posing or inciting a physical threat, or deserved punishment for murder or harming people, as indicated in the Reasons column.”

See, if we employ your rationale, then you would have to admit that the Christian God was equally as rotten as Muhammad, since both murdered “innocents”.

“Names in bold indicate that the only reason why the sources indicate Muhammad wanted them to be killed or threatened with death was because they had mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him

Yes. Meaning they are innocent of any crimes.

See, if we employ your rationale, then you would have to admit that the Christian God was equally as rotten as Muhammad, since both murdered “innocents”.

If you believe in the Christian God, you believe that the Christian God kills literally EVERYONE.

He also created everyone. So it's not really the same thing.

But suppose, just for a second, that we don't believe in ANY gods. We just compare the historical person of Jesus and the historical person of Muhammad.

Jesus never killed anyone. Never ordered anyone to be killed. Muhammad ordered lots of innocent people to be killed. Hence, Muhammad is a bad person, and Jesus is a good one.

You know this. Everyone knows this. The fact thst you refuse to admit it is, as I keep fucking pointing out to you, nothing more than proof that the only way to defend Islam is by saying that murder is OK. Hence, all people who defend Islam are evil.

But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

For the thousandth time, I agree with this, in the same sense that it is only my opinion that murder is bad. You think murder is OK, which is the only way you can defend Islam.

No, people are telling the truth when they believe in their faith.

But they lie about WHAT they believe. Muslims believe that murdering people and raping children is good. But they know this is socially unacceptable, so they lie and say they don't.

That website you keep linking to has some lying Muslims pretending that Muhammad never killed anyone, despite what their religious texts say. You believed them, because you love being wrong. I didn't, because I know Muslims always lie.

The source you listed states specifically "Names in bold indicate that the only reason why the sources indicate Muhammad wanted them to be killed or threatened with death was because they had mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him, or to extort economic gain, or to destroy idolatry or rival prophets. All others may have been killed for additional reasons such as posing or inciting a physical threat, or deserved punishment for murder or harming people, as indicated in the Reasons column."

See, if we employ your rationale, then you would have to admit that the Christian God was equally as rotten as Muhammad, since both murdered "innocents".

"One of the things I know, from long experience, is that defenders of Islam NEVER tell the truth about it."

You mean from experience with holding an opinion on the matter.

"It tells me they KNOW Islam is a shitty religion, and that all decent people sbould hate it."

It is a religion that you personally hate, which is fine. But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

"But they don’t. They lie."

No, people are telling the truth when they believe in their faith.

"Which, in turn, proves that they only want to bring more Muslims here because they hate western civilization and want to make everyone in it suffer."

That's really just your own take on things. Again, it's not the absolute truth.

“Names in bold indicate that the only reason why the sources indicate Muhammad wanted them to be killed or threatened with death was because they had mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him

Yes. Meaning they are innocent of any crimes.

See, if we employ your rationale, then you would have to admit that the Christian God was equally as rotten as Muhammad, since both murdered “innocents”.

If you believe in the Christian God, you believe that the Christian God kills literally EVERYONE.

He also created everyone. So it’s not really the same thing.

But suppose, just for a second, that we don’t believe in ANY gods. We just compare the historical person of Jesus and the historical person of Muhammad.

Jesus never killed anyone. Never ordered anyone to be killed. Muhammad ordered lots of innocent people to be killed. Hence, Muhammad is a bad person, and Jesus is a good one.

You know this. Everyone knows this. The fact thst you refuse to admit it is, as I keep fucking pointing out to you, nothing more than proof that the only way to defend Islam is by saying that murder is OK. Hence, all people who defend Islam are evil.

But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

For the thousandth time, I agree with this, in the same sense that it is only my opinion that murder is bad. You think murder is OK, which is the only way you can defend Islam.

No, people are telling the truth when they believe in their faith.

But they lie about WHAT they believe. Muslims believe that murdering people and raping children is good. But they know this is socially unacceptable, so they lie and say they don’t.

That website you keep linking to has some lying Muslims pretending that Muhammad never killed anyone, despite what their religious texts say. You believed them, because you love being wrong. I didn’t, because I know Muslims always lie.

Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war “innocent”?

“Hence, Muhammad is a bad person, and Jesus is a good one.”

ASSUMING what you say is true, that does not mean that Christianity is good and Islam is bad, or that Christianity is a better religion than Islam. All you have is an opinion, not objective fact.

“You know this. Everyone knows this.”

No, only those people like yourself who know this. If you say “everyone”, that would mean all people on Earth other than Muslim. And we know that is definitively false.

“The fact thst you refuse to admit it is, as I keep fucking pointing out to you, nothing more than proof that the only way to defend Islam is by saying that murder is OK. Hence, all people who defend Islam are evil.”

But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth. And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil. That is only YOUR characterization or personal interpretation.

“For the thousandth time, I agree with this, in the same sense that it is only my opinion that murder is bad. You think murder is OK, which is the only way you can defend Islam.”

Of course I never said murder is OK. You’re making up things as you go along. Did you have your nap today?

“That website you keep linking to has some lying Muslims pretending that Muhammad never killed anyone, despite what their religious texts say.”

You’re really confused. Go to bed. Get some sleep.

“You believed them, because you love being wrong. I didn’t, because I know Muslims always lie.”

And you do realize that your source is biased, uninformed site parading itself as a legitimate source, right? Worm tongue…

That's a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars.

In contrast, your statements are backed up by literally nothing at all. So, no offense, Corvy, but I think they're just a BIT more informed than you are.

God creates life and he can take life. It is His power. Are you that dense?

No, I'm not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people. So you're not dense. That's good, but that only leaves pathological dishonesty as a reason for comparing the two.

Again, that is not entirely accurate.

You already showed me that. And again, it's still just a parable. A story, in other words.

Which is why I asked you a question. Here is that question again.

Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus, or you would have to say that you think murdering people is no worse than telling stories, which would prove that you can only defend Islam by claiming that murder is OK.

There is no reason to continue this, because we have already seen that you know this, by your refusal to answer the question.No, that is not entirely accurate.

You already linked to that too. Notice that nowhere in that link does it dispute any of the people from my link that Muhammad killed. You just posted it again because you do not want to deal with the people Muhammad had killed, such as the slave girls who mocked him.

You can tell that this site was written by Muslims, because it conveniently avoids discussing all of the people Muhammad killed. It is what you would expect from Muslims, though, because they are so dishonest. This is why you like them. Because they are bad, and, as a bad person yourself, you will always defend everything that is bad.Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war “innocent”?

People who engage in blaspbemy are. That is what we have been talking about this entire time.

Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent? If you think they're not, just say so. Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed. Then I will explain why you do not belong in the United States either, any more than your evil Muslim friends do.But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

For the one-thousand-and-second time, this is true, in the exact same sense that it is only my opinion that murdering innocent people is evil.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this point?

And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil.

This is only your opinion and not objective truth.Of course I never said murder is OK.

Then you have no choice but to admit that Muhammad is evil.

Are you about done, Corvinus? It looks like you're now saying that you think blasphemy is a crime, that deserves the death penalty. If so, say it. Then explain why you spent all this time arguing with me, when you could have just said that you agree with Muhammad's murders over blasphemy.

Either way, you've done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends Islam, and how shitty all of their arguments are. I appreciate that, if nothing else.

Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war "innocent"?

"Hence, Muhammad is a bad person, and Jesus is a good one."

ASSUMING what you say is true, that does not mean that Christianity is good and Islam is bad, or that Christianity is a better religion than Islam. All you have is an opinion, not objective fact.

"You know this. Everyone knows this."

No, only those people like yourself who know this. If you say "everyone", that would mean all people on Earth other than Muslim. And we know that is definitively false.

"The fact thst you refuse to admit it is, as I keep fucking pointing out to you, nothing more than proof that the only way to defend Islam is by saying that murder is OK. Hence, all people who defend Islam are evil."

But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth. And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil. That is only YOUR characterization or personal interpretation.

"For the thousandth time, I agree with this, in the same sense that it is only my opinion that murder is bad. You think murder is OK, which is the only way you can defend Islam."

Of course I never said murder is OK. You're making up things as you go along. Did you have your nap today?

"That website you keep linking to has some lying Muslims pretending that Muhammad never killed anyone, despite what their religious texts say."

You're really confused. Go to bed. Get some sleep.

"You believed them, because you love being wrong. I didn’t, because I know Muslims always lie."

You THINK you know that Muslims always lie.

You have an odd definition of innocent here.

My definition is US law. You don’t think people who “mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him”, which is what YOU said, are “innocent”?

If you think mocking, insulting, or casting doubt are capital crimes, just say so, so we can all see what kind of people the defenders of Islam are.

Besides, the three major religions are not beholden to US law, only God's law. Second, US law has no applicability to the situations we have been discussing, as it had not been even developed yet. Third, you have to prove in EVERY case listed in the source you provided how and why EACH person allegedly murdered directly by Muhammad was "innocent" using a specific definition of innocent rooted in American law, rather than make a blanket statement.

You have a LOT of work to do.

"You don’t think people who “mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him”, which is what YOU said, are “innocent”?"

Again, you have to prove that each and every one of them are innocent given the nature of the situation and the context of the times.

You have a LOT of work to do.

"If you think mocking, insulting, or casting doubt are capital crimes, just say so, so we can all see what kind of people the defenders of Islam are."

You are conflating human law and God's law here. Separate, distinct matters based on context. You do realize you are defending Middle Easterners here, right, by claiming that they were "innocent" and did not deserve to be "murdered" (allegedly) by Muhammad. How ironic...

"That’s a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars."

One needs to actually explain how and why those citations apply, rather than merely list them in a neat chart.

Furthermore, this source debunks wiki-islam point by point.

http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/wiki-islam-debunked.html

So, in addition to your first task, you will need to counter, with evidence, the authors response to wiki-islam.

Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war "innocent"?

"Hence, Muhammad is a bad person, and Jesus is a good one."

ASSUMING what you say is true, that does not mean that Christianity is good and Islam is bad, or that Christianity is a better religion than Islam. All you have is an opinion, not objective fact.

"You know this. Everyone knows this."

No, only those people like yourself who know this. If you say "everyone", that would mean all people on Earth other than Muslim. And we know that is definitively false.

"The fact thst you refuse to admit it is, as I keep fucking pointing out to you, nothing more than proof that the only way to defend Islam is by saying that murder is OK. Hence, all people who defend Islam are evil."

But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth. And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil. That is only YOUR characterization or personal interpretation.

"For the thousandth time, I agree with this, in the same sense that it is only my opinion that murder is bad. You think murder is OK, which is the only way you can defend Islam."

Of course I never said murder is OK. You're making up things as you go along. Did you have your nap today?

"That website you keep linking to has some lying Muslims pretending that Muhammad never killed anyone, despite what their religious texts say."

You're really confused. Go to bed. Get some sleep.

"You believed them, because you love being wrong. I didn’t, because I know Muslims always lie."

You THINK you know that Muslims always lie.

And you do realize that your source is biased, uninformed site parading itself as a legitimate source, right? Worm tongue…

That’s a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars.

In contrast, your statements are backed up by literally nothing at all. So, no offense, Corvy, but I think they’re just a BIT more informed than you are.

God creates life and he can take life. It is His power. Are you that dense?

No, I’m not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people. So you’re not dense. That’s good, but that only leaves pathological dishonesty as a reason for comparing the two.

Again, that is not entirely accurate.

You already showed me that. And again, it’s still just a parable. A story, in other words.

Which is why I asked you a question. Here is that question again.

Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus, or you would have to say that you think murdering people is no worse than telling stories, which would prove that you can only defend Islam by claiming that murder is OK.

There is no reason to continue this, because we have already seen that you know this, by your refusal to answer the question.
No, that is not entirely accurate.

You already linked to that too. Notice that nowhere in that link does it dispute any of the people from my link that Muhammad killed. You just posted it again because you do not want to deal with the people Muhammad had killed, such as the slave girls who mocked him.

You can tell that this site was written by Muslims, because it conveniently avoids discussing all of the people Muhammad killed. It is what you would expect from Muslims, though, because they are so dishonest. This is why you like them. Because they are bad, and, as a bad person yourself, you will always defend everything that is bad.
Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war “innocent”?

People who engage in blaspbemy are. That is what we have been talking about this entire time.

Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent? If you think they’re not, just say so. Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed. Then I will explain why you do not belong in the United States either, any more than your evil Muslim friends do.
But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

For the one-thousand-and-second time, this is true, in the exact same sense that it is only my opinion that murdering innocent people is evil.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this point?

And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil.

This is only your opinion and not objective truth.
Of course I never said murder is OK.

Then you have no choice but to admit that Muhammad is evil.

Are you about done, Corvinus? It looks like you’re now saying that you think blasphemy is a crime, that deserves the death penalty. If so, say it. Then explain why you spent all this time arguing with me, when you could have just said that you agree with Muhammad’s murders over blasphemy.

Either way, you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends Islam, and how shitty all of their arguments are. I appreciate that, if nothing else.

"No, I’m not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people."

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

"Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?"

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

"You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus."

It's really simple here. Religions have murdered people who mocked or ridiculed their beliefs or sacred texts. Gods have ordered people to be murdered. Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

And when one says there is a "better" or "worse" religion, or that one messenger is "better" or "worse" than another messenger, those are mere personal opinions.

"Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent?"

Depends on the situation and context. Regardless, you really need to take care of your homework assigned to you.

"Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed."

I never made that claim, directly or indirectly. Blasphemy today is not punishable by death in our current American society, but it is subject to other consequences. So of course we as American citizens oppose such a harsh penalty on our soil or on the soil of other nations, even if they have their own laws and/or social norms in place. But is it our business to impose our value system to other parts of the world?

Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place. Context matters here.

"The codification of Roman Law carried out by the Christian Emperor Justinian in the sixth century was clear. According to his Corpus Juris Civilis, famine, earthquakes and pestilence were attributable to God's wrath, induced by a failure to punish blasphemers. This was exactly the opposite of what had been believed three hundred years earlier, when Christians had been blamed for the wrath of the gods. The difference was that now the punishment for blasphemy, fixed by Justinian's code, was death. This code would be influential not only in the East but also in the West. By the time the Holy Roman Empire came into being in AD 800 such ideas were accepted throughout Europe."

Remember, "the consensus was that there was no choice in the matter because God had been explicit--And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)."

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered "innocents" who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of "innocents"? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally "innocent" according to US law?

http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html

If not, then you have no choice but to admit that God and Christianity is evil.

I do appreciate you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends religion and murder.

My definition is US law. You don't think people who "mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him”, which is what YOU said, are "innocent"?

If you think mocking, insulting, or casting doubt are capital crimes, just say so, so we can all see what kind of people the defenders of Islam are.

“My definition is US law.”

Too broad. Try again. Be more specific.

Besides, the three major religions are not beholden to US law, only God’s law. Second, US law has no applicability to the situations we have been discussing, as it had not been even developed yet. Third, you have to prove in EVERY case listed in the source you provided how and why EACH person allegedly murdered directly by Muhammad was “innocent” using a specific definition of innocent rooted in American law, rather than make a blanket statement.

You have a LOT of work to do.

“You don’t think people who “mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him”, which is what YOU said, are “innocent”?”

Again, you have to prove that each and every one of them are innocent given the nature of the situation and the context of the times.

You have a LOT of work to do.

“If you think mocking, insulting, or casting doubt are capital crimes, just say so, so we can all see what kind of people the defenders of Islam are.”

You are conflating human law and God’s law here. Separate, distinct matters based on context. You do realize you are defending Middle Easterners here, right, by claiming that they were “innocent” and did not deserve to be “murdered” (allegedly) by Muhammad. How ironic…

“That’s a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars.”

One needs to actually explain how and why those citations apply, rather than merely list them in a neat chart.

Besides, the three major religions are not beholden to US law, only God’s law.

I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.
Third, you have to prove in EVERY case listed in the source you provided how and why EACH person allegedly murdered directly by Muhammad was “innocent” using a specific definition of innocent rooted in American law, rather than make a blanket statement.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. If only ONE of them is, that makes Muhammad a murderer.

Unless you're suggesting that it's OK to murder a certain number of people. Are you, Corvinus? Are you suggesting that?
Again, you have to prove that each and every one of them are innocent given the nature of the situation and the context of the times.

Oh! So now we're going to do the "context" thing!

How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later? You know you can't actually pretend he's not a murderer anymore, so you pretend that, if Muhammad lived in a time when it was OK to murder people, then being a murderer is OK.

Which is a shitty enough argument under the best of circumstances, but is even worse when you consider that, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad was the guy in charge! Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He's the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn't have to do that, you know. He could have made good laws instead. He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.

You do realize you are defending Middle Easterners here, right, by claiming that they were “innocent” and did not deserve to be “murdered” (allegedly) by Muhammad.

I know. Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.
One needs to actually explain how and why those citations apply, rather than merely list them in a neat chart.

No. No one doesn't. That is the standard way to give citations, shit-for-brains. It's how people give citations to Bible verses of scientific journal articles or whatever. They're there so you can go to them and look it up for yourselves.

Furthermore, this source debunks wiki-islam point by point.

Do you even read your own links? That link does nothing more than question their analysis of the Quran. But the sources in my link aren't from the Quran. They're from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They're historical texts, not religious ones.

What's more, that link supposedly shows that the Quran is completely true, for all times. Do you believe that, Corvinus? Do you believe that a answeringislamicskeptics has proven that the Quran is true? Because they claim that they have. Do you believe that? If not, that's a pretty stupid thing to link to.

But, then, you are incredibly dumb, so I guess that doesn't surprise me.

And you do realize that your source is biased, uninformed site parading itself as a legitimate source, right? Worm tongue…

That's a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars.

In contrast, your statements are backed up by literally nothing at all. So, no offense, Corvy, but I think they're just a BIT more informed than you are.

God creates life and he can take life. It is His power. Are you that dense?

No, I'm not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people. So you're not dense. That's good, but that only leaves pathological dishonesty as a reason for comparing the two.

Again, that is not entirely accurate.

You already showed me that. And again, it's still just a parable. A story, in other words.

Which is why I asked you a question. Here is that question again.

Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus, or you would have to say that you think murdering people is no worse than telling stories, which would prove that you can only defend Islam by claiming that murder is OK.

There is no reason to continue this, because we have already seen that you know this, by your refusal to answer the question.No, that is not entirely accurate.

You already linked to that too. Notice that nowhere in that link does it dispute any of the people from my link that Muhammad killed. You just posted it again because you do not want to deal with the people Muhammad had killed, such as the slave girls who mocked him.

You can tell that this site was written by Muslims, because it conveniently avoids discussing all of the people Muhammad killed. It is what you would expect from Muslims, though, because they are so dishonest. This is why you like them. Because they are bad, and, as a bad person yourself, you will always defend everything that is bad.Besides, are those people who engage in blasphemy or in acts of war “innocent”?

People who engage in blaspbemy are. That is what we have been talking about this entire time.

Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent? If you think they're not, just say so. Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed. Then I will explain why you do not belong in the United States either, any more than your evil Muslim friends do.But to state unequivocally that Islam is worse than other faiths is simply your own point of view, and not objective truth.

For the one-thousand-and-second time, this is true, in the exact same sense that it is only my opinion that murdering innocent people is evil.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this point?

And, of course, those who defend Islam are other than evil.

This is only your opinion and not objective truth.Of course I never said murder is OK.

Then you have no choice but to admit that Muhammad is evil.

Are you about done, Corvinus? It looks like you're now saying that you think blasphemy is a crime, that deserves the death penalty. If so, say it. Then explain why you spent all this time arguing with me, when you could have just said that you agree with Muhammad's murders over blasphemy.

Either way, you've done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends Islam, and how shitty all of their arguments are. I appreciate that, if nothing else.

“No, I’m not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people.”

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

“Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?”

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

“You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus.”

It’s really simple here. Religions have murdered people who mocked or ridiculed their beliefs or sacred texts. Gods have ordered people to be murdered. Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

And when one says there is a “better” or “worse” religion, or that one messenger is “better” or “worse” than another messenger, those are mere personal opinions.

“Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent?”

Depends on the situation and context. Regardless, you really need to take care of your homework assigned to you.

“Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed.”

I never made that claim, directly or indirectly. Blasphemy today is not punishable by death in our current American society, but it is subject to other consequences. So of course we as American citizens oppose such a harsh penalty on our soil or on the soil of other nations, even if they have their own laws and/or social norms in place. But is it our business to impose our value system to other parts of the world?

Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place. Context matters here.

“The codification of Roman Law carried out by the Christian Emperor Justinian in the sixth century was clear. According to his Corpus Juris Civilis, famine, earthquakes and pestilence were attributable to God’s wrath, induced by a failure to punish blasphemers. This was exactly the opposite of what had been believed three hundred years earlier, when Christians had been blamed for the wrath of the gods. The difference was that now the punishment for blasphemy, fixed by Justinian’s code, was death. This code would be influential not only in the East but also in the West. By the time the Holy Roman Empire came into being in AD 800 such ideas were accepted throughout Europe.”

Remember, “the consensus was that there was no choice in the matter because God had been explicit–And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16).”

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

Right. And you would only throw killings by God into the mix with killings by people if you were either stupid or dishonest. So which are you?

Because you've already agreed that, according to the religions, God kills EVERYONE. But he created them too, so it's different. That was the whole point of your argument.

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

Yes, we did cover that ground. And we discovered that you are too cowardly to answer the question, because you know that Muhammad was a bad person. This proved to me that only bad people ever defend Islam, proving that I am justified in making Muslims suffer. I was attempting to be nice by giving you another chance, but again, you refused. Further proof that I am right.

Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

Right. But if they do it of their own accord, you can't blame the religion for that. It's a "perversion" of the religion, as you called it, long, long ago.

In the case of Muhammad, the murders weren't a "perversion". They were what he directly ordered.

Depends on the situation and context. I never made that claim, directly or indirectly.

You just did. Just now. You just said that, in certain contexts, it's OK to murder people for mocking someone.Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place.

Of course they did. They were wrong to do so. But that was a perversion of the religion. It is not a perversion of Islam, because Muhammad himself ordered that it be done. This is because it's a shitty religion, practiced and defended by shitty people.

I think this is over now, Corvy. You just admitted that I am right.Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy?

Yes, of course I am. The Catholic Church killed lots of innocent people. They were wrong to do so.If not, then you have no choice but to admit that God and Christianity is evil.

Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone.

Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.

I do appreciate you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends religion and murder.

'Fraid not, Corvy. I never defended murdering innocent people. You did, with your bullshit about how, in certain contexts, murdering people is OK.

Well, this has been fun. But it's taking valuable time away from my persecution of Muslims, which I have come to believe is even more justified than I ever thought before.

Besides, the three major religions are not beholden to US law, only God's law. Second, US law has no applicability to the situations we have been discussing, as it had not been even developed yet. Third, you have to prove in EVERY case listed in the source you provided how and why EACH person allegedly murdered directly by Muhammad was "innocent" using a specific definition of innocent rooted in American law, rather than make a blanket statement.

You have a LOT of work to do.

"You don’t think people who “mocked, insulted, or cast doubt on him”, which is what YOU said, are “innocent”?"

Again, you have to prove that each and every one of them are innocent given the nature of the situation and the context of the times.

You have a LOT of work to do.

"If you think mocking, insulting, or casting doubt are capital crimes, just say so, so we can all see what kind of people the defenders of Islam are."

You are conflating human law and God's law here. Separate, distinct matters based on context. You do realize you are defending Middle Easterners here, right, by claiming that they were "innocent" and did not deserve to be "murdered" (allegedly) by Muhammad. How ironic...

"That’s a very interesting point of view, considering that all of the examples they give come with citations to hadith, which are recognized by all mainstream Islamic scholars."

One needs to actually explain how and why those citations apply, rather than merely list them in a neat chart.

Furthermore, this source debunks wiki-islam point by point.

http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/wiki-islam-debunked.html

So, in addition to your first task, you will need to counter, with evidence, the authors response to wiki-islam.

You have a LOT of work to do.

Besides, the three major religions are not beholden to US law, only God’s law.

I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.
Third, you have to prove in EVERY case listed in the source you provided how and why EACH person allegedly murdered directly by Muhammad was “innocent” using a specific definition of innocent rooted in American law, rather than make a blanket statement.

No, as a matter of fact, I don’t. If only ONE of them is, that makes Muhammad a murderer.

Unless you’re suggesting that it’s OK to murder a certain number of people. Are you, Corvinus? Are you suggesting that?
Again, you have to prove that each and every one of them are innocent given the nature of the situation and the context of the times.

Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing!

How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later? You know you can’t actually pretend he’s not a murderer anymore, so you pretend that, if Muhammad lived in a time when it was OK to murder people, then being a murderer is OK.

Which is a shitty enough argument under the best of circumstances, but is even worse when you consider that, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad was the guy in charge! Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know. He could have made good laws instead. He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.

You do realize you are defending Middle Easterners here, right, by claiming that they were “innocent” and did not deserve to be “murdered” (allegedly) by Muhammad.

I know. Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.
One needs to actually explain how and why those citations apply, rather than merely list them in a neat chart.

No. No one doesn’t. That is the standard way to give citations, shit-for-brains. It’s how people give citations to Bible verses of scientific journal articles or whatever. They’re there so you can go to them and look it up for yourselves.

Furthermore, this source debunks wiki-islam point by point.

Do you even read your own links? That link does nothing more than question their analysis of the Quran. But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.

What’s more, that link supposedly shows that the Quran is completely true, for all times. Do you believe that, Corvinus? Do you believe that a answeringislamicskeptics has proven that the Quran is true? Because they claim that they have. Do you believe that? If not, that’s a pretty stupid thing to link to.

But, then, you are incredibly dumb, so I guess that doesn’t surprise me.

"No, I’m not, but I assumed you were, because you were equating God killing people with human beings murdering people."

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

"Which person is worse? A person who tells a story about people being killed, or a person who ACTUALLY ORDERS THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?"

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

"You refused to answer the question before, because you either have to admit that murderers are worse than storytellers, which would be admitting that Muhammad is worse than Jesus."

It's really simple here. Religions have murdered people who mocked or ridiculed their beliefs or sacred texts. Gods have ordered people to be murdered. Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

And when one says there is a "better" or "worse" religion, or that one messenger is "better" or "worse" than another messenger, those are mere personal opinions.

"Do you NOT think people who engage in blasphemy are innocent?"

Depends on the situation and context. Regardless, you really need to take care of your homework assigned to you.

"Just go ahead and admit that you think people who engage in blasphemy should be killed."

I never made that claim, directly or indirectly. Blasphemy today is not punishable by death in our current American society, but it is subject to other consequences. So of course we as American citizens oppose such a harsh penalty on our soil or on the soil of other nations, even if they have their own laws and/or social norms in place. But is it our business to impose our value system to other parts of the world?

Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place. Context matters here.

"The codification of Roman Law carried out by the Christian Emperor Justinian in the sixth century was clear. According to his Corpus Juris Civilis, famine, earthquakes and pestilence were attributable to God's wrath, induced by a failure to punish blasphemers. This was exactly the opposite of what had been believed three hundred years earlier, when Christians had been blamed for the wrath of the gods. The difference was that now the punishment for blasphemy, fixed by Justinian's code, was death. This code would be influential not only in the East but also in the West. By the time the Holy Roman Empire came into being in AD 800 such ideas were accepted throughout Europe."

Remember, "the consensus was that there was no choice in the matter because God had been explicit--And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)."

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered "innocents" who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of "innocents"? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally "innocent" according to US law?

http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html

If not, then you have no choice but to admit that God and Christianity is evil.

I do appreciate you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends religion and murder.

So, are you done here?

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

Right. And you would only throw killings by God into the mix with killings by people if you were either stupid or dishonest. So which are you?

Because you’ve already agreed that, according to the religions, God kills EVERYONE. But he created them too, so it’s different. That was the whole point of your argument.

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

Yes, we did cover that ground. And we discovered that you are too cowardly to answer the question, because you know that Muhammad was a bad person. This proved to me that only bad people ever defend Islam, proving that I am justified in making Muslims suffer. I was attempting to be nice by giving you another chance, but again, you refused. Further proof that I am right.

Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

Right. But if they do it of their own accord, you can’t blame the religion for that. It’s a “perversion” of the religion, as you called it, long, long ago.

In the case of Muhammad, the murders weren’t a “perversion”. They were what he directly ordered.

Depends on the situation and context.
I never made that claim, directly or indirectly.

You just did. Just now. You just said that, in certain contexts, it’s OK to murder people for mocking someone.
Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place.

Of course they did. They were wrong to do so. But that was a perversion of the religion. It is not a perversion of Islam, because Muhammad himself ordered that it be done. This is because it’s a shitty religion, practiced and defended by shitty people.

I think this is over now, Corvy. You just admitted that I am right.
Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy?

Yes, of course I am. The Catholic Church killed lots of innocent people. They were wrong to do so.
If not, then you have no choice but to admit that God and Christianity is evil.

Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone.

Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.

I do appreciate you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends religion and murder.

‘Fraid not, Corvy. I never defended murdering innocent people. You did, with your bullshit about how, in certain contexts, murdering people is OK.

Well, this has been fun. But it’s taking valuable time away from my persecution of Muslims, which I have come to believe is even more justified than I ever thought before.

“I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.”

Actually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

“Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing! How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later?”

Of course there is context here, as it always has been. Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death. You have a LOT of work to do.

“Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know.”

No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

“He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.”

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

”Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character. Why are you lying here?

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

”But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.”

No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars. It was historical AND religious. But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

“Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.”

No, I was stating how religion, either by God Himself or by His adherents, have murdered people.

Right. And you would only throw killings by God into the mix with killings by people if you were either stupid or dishonest. So which are you?

Because you've already agreed that, according to the religions, God kills EVERYONE. But he created them too, so it's different. That was the whole point of your argument.

We already covered that ground. You are not being truthful nor accurate. Worm tongue.

Yes, we did cover that ground. And we discovered that you are too cowardly to answer the question, because you know that Muhammad was a bad person. This proved to me that only bad people ever defend Islam, proving that I am justified in making Muslims suffer. I was attempting to be nice by giving you another chance, but again, you refused. Further proof that I am right.

Their adherents have carried out those actions at His request or of their own accord.

Right. But if they do it of their own accord, you can't blame the religion for that. It's a "perversion" of the religion, as you called it, long, long ago.

In the case of Muhammad, the murders weren't a "perversion". They were what he directly ordered.

Depends on the situation and context. I never made that claim, directly or indirectly.

You just did. Just now. You just said that, in certain contexts, it's OK to murder people for mocking someone.Remember, Western Civilization had also engaged in the practice of killing blasphemers, which was a different time and place.

Of course they did. They were wrong to do so. But that was a perversion of the religion. It is not a perversion of Islam, because Muhammad himself ordered that it be done. This is because it's a shitty religion, practiced and defended by shitty people.

I think this is over now, Corvy. You just admitted that I am right.Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy?

Yes, of course I am. The Catholic Church killed lots of innocent people. They were wrong to do so.If not, then you have no choice but to admit that God and Christianity is evil.

Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone.

Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.

I do appreciate you’ve done more than most other people to demonstrate what kind of person defends religion and murder.

'Fraid not, Corvy. I never defended murdering innocent people. You did, with your bullshit about how, in certain contexts, murdering people is OK.

Well, this has been fun. But it's taking valuable time away from my persecution of Muslims, which I have come to believe is even more justified than I ever thought before.

“I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.”

Actually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

“Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing! How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later?”

Of course there is context here, as it always has been. Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death. You have a LOT of work to do.

“Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know.”

No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

“He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.”

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

”Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character. Why are you lying here?

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

”But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.”

No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars. It was historical AND religious. But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

“Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character.

Charles Manson is completely identical to Muhammad. A murderer who claimed to be a holy figure. If I insulted him, would that show my bad character?
Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy?

I already said that, dummy. Then said it was wrong for them to do so.
Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”?

Well, we went over this already. God ordering people killed is a Jewish thing. Another inferjor religion.

Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

Went over this already too. I don't need to prove that ALL of them were innocent under US law. Only ONE of them being innocent under US law is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is a murderer, and that anyone who defends him is evil.

Let's start with Fartana, number 18 on the list. What crime do you think she committed?
No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars.

Yes. Islamic scholars who compiled the hadiths.

And in any event, the stupid link which you didn't bother to read didn't refute any of their citations.

But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

No. Their interpretations are completely mainstream and accepted by all Muslims. You can't find me a single Islamic scholar who questions their interpretations. There aren't any.

And nobody is biased against Muslims. All decent people simply realize what a shitty religion it is, and how shitty all of its followers are, once they look into it.

The only people who think Islam is good are people who really know nothing about it, or who hate western civilization and are favor of everything that is bad for it. Both of these apply to you.
No, it hasn’t been established. Only in your mind.OK. So let's establish it, once and for all.

Who is a worse person, morally? A person who tells a story about a king, or a person who orders the killing of people who insult him?

“I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.”

Actually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

“Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing! How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later?”

Of course there is context here, as it always has been. Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death. You have a LOT of work to do.

“Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know.”

No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

“He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.”

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

”Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character. Why are you lying here?

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

”But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.”

No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars. It was historical AND religious. But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

“Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.”

No, it hasn’t been established. Only in your mind.

Are you done here?

QActually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

So you think it’s OK for Muhammad to murder people, because he says it’s God’s will.

Why didn’t you just say that first? It would have saved us a lot of time.

I think it was OK for Charles Manson to order the murder of Sharon Tate, because he claimed to be God. Agree or disagree, stupid?

"So you think it’s OK for Muhammad to murder people, because he says it’s God’s will."

If you want to condemn him for alleging murdering innocent people, then you are going to have to be consistent by condemning any and all religions who have taken on this role.

"I think it was OK for Charles Manson to order the murder of Sharon Tate, because he claimed to be God."

This situation is a red herring. It is irrelevant. We are not talking about a mentally ill person who was clearly demented, we are talking about how all religions have been used by their adherents to justify taking a person's life for various reasons. Again, blasphemy in

"He was good, while Muhammad was evil."

Both were good for their faiths. For those who are anti-Christian or anti-Muslim or who foolishly believe that one religion is better than another religion, or that one religious figure is less good than another religious figure, of course people will say nasty things.

"Jesus never said to kill anyone. Once again."

That's not true. We already covered that ground. His words were used directly by his followers to commit murder of infidels and heathens. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27) It makes no different if it was a parable. His meaning was clear.

"Charles Manson is completely identical to Muhammad. A murderer who claimed to be a holy figure."

There is no comparison here. You have gone off the rails. Muhammad was a prophet, a person who was God's Messenger, an individual with a history of spreading Islam.

"God ordering people killed is a Jewish thing. Another inferjor religion."

No, God ordering people killed is a religious thing done by its adherents in His name as commanded by Him. And Judaism is not observably superior or inferior, it simply is a religion.

"Only ONE of them being innocent under US law is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is a murderer, and that anyone who defends him is evil."

No, context matters. You have to show proof in all of the cases. But US law is irrelevant here anyways.

"And in any event, the stupid link which you didn’t bother to read didn’t refute any of their citations."

The authors from the source I provided refuted wikislam, which is bunk.

"All decent people simply realize what a shitty religion it is, and how shitty all of its followers are, once they look into it."

Actually, a number of decent people realize that religion is personal, and cannot be labeled superior or inferior since it is a matter of faith. You lose.

"The only people who think Islam is good are people who really know nothing about it, or who hate western civilization and are favor of everything that is bad for it. Both of these apply to you."

“I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.”

Actually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

“Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing! How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later?”

Of course there is context here, as it always has been. Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death. You have a LOT of work to do.

“Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know.”

No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

“He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.”

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

”Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character. Why are you lying here?

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

”But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.”

No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars. It was historical AND religious. But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

“Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.”

No, it hasn’t been established. Only in your mind.

Are you done here?

Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death.

Not by Jesus. He was good, while Muhammad was evil.
No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

Not in Christianity. Jesus never said to kill anyone. Once again. This is because he is good, while Muhammad is evil.

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

My opinion is that he is a murderer, and murderers are bad.

You have an opinion that murderers like Muhammad are good, and you refuse to listen to anyn

“I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about a person. Muhammad. Who, under US law, would be a murderer. You are OK with this because you are a bad person.”

Actually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

“Oh! So now we’re going to do the “context” thing! How did I fucking know that that was going to come up sooner or later?”

Of course there is context here, as it always has been. Blasphemy in any religion has been deemed an offense punishable by death. You have a LOT of work to do.

“Meaning that HE was the guy who made the rules! He’s the one who made the rule that said you should murder people who mock Muhammad. He didn’t have to do that, you know.”

No, this “rule” was found in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Those deemed to be blashmeous are not considered to be “innocent”.

“He chose not to because he is a bad person, just like everyone who defends him.”

You are out of your element here yet again. We already established that you have a personal opinion of Muhammad that you are desperately trying to propject as fact.

”Any Middle Easterner who mocks and insults Muhammad shows himself to be a person of good character.”

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character. Why are you lying here?

Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy? Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”? Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

”But the sources in my link aren’t from the Quran. They’re from hadith and from the biography of Muhammad. They’re historical texts, not religious ones.”

No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars. It was historical AND religious. But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

“Untrue, because Christ (the guy who founded Christianity) never told anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad did. He is worse than Jesus, as we have already established.”

No, it hasn’t been established. Only in your mind.

Are you done here?

No, a person who mocks or insults a holy figuer is other than an individual wth good character.

Charles Manson is completely identical to Muhammad. A murderer who claimed to be a holy figure. If I insulted him, would that show my bad character?
Are you prepared to state that Western Europe and the Catholic Church murdered “innocents” who committed blasphemy?

I already said that, dummy. Then said it was wrong for them to do so.
Are you prepared to state that God was wrong in his command that blasphemers be put to death, that he was actually a murder of “innocents”?

Well, we went over this already. God ordering people killed is a Jewish thing. Another inferjor religion.

Are you prepared to defend in each and every circumstance that those who were murdered because they were labeled blasphemers were unequivocally “innocent” according to US law?

Went over this already too. I don’t need to prove that ALL of them were innocent under US law. Only ONE of them being innocent under US law is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is a murderer, and that anyone who defends him is evil.

Let’s start with Fartana, number 18 on the list. What crime do you think she committed?
No, your link also contained references to the Qur’an and Islamic scholars.

Yes. Islamic scholars who compiled the hadiths.

And in any event, the stupid link which you didn’t bother to read didn’t refute any of their citations.

But the problem is that the source has a distinct anti-Muslim bias, and makes its OWN interpretations of the texts.

No. Their interpretations are completely mainstream and accepted by all Muslims. You can’t find me a single Islamic scholar who questions their interpretations. There aren’t any.

And nobody is biased against Muslims. All decent people simply realize what a shitty religion it is, and how shitty all of its followers are, once they look into it.

The only people who think Islam is good are people who really know nothing about it, or who hate western civilization and are favor of everything that is bad for it. Both of these apply to you.
No, it hasn’t been established. Only in your mind.
OK. So let’s establish it, once and for all.

Who is a worse person, morally? A person who tells a story about a king, or a person who orders the killing of people who insult him?

QActually, we have been talking about God, people, and religion, all of whom have unfortunately ordered the murder of non-believers. And US law is a red herring here, as God’s law trumps man made law.

So you think it's OK for Muhammad to murder people, because he says it's God's will.

Why didn't you just say that first? It would have saved us a lot of time.

I think it was OK for Charles Manson to order the murder of Sharon Tate, because he claimed to be God. Agree or disagree, stupid?

“So you think it’s OK for Muhammad to murder people, because he says it’s God’s will.”

If you want to condemn him for alleging murdering innocent people, then you are going to have to be consistent by condemning any and all religions who have taken on this role.

“I think it was OK for Charles Manson to order the murder of Sharon Tate, because he claimed to be God.”

This situation is a red herring. It is irrelevant. We are not talking about a mentally ill person who was clearly demented, we are talking about how all religions have been used by their adherents to justify taking a person’s life for various reasons. Again, blasphemy in

“He was good, while Muhammad was evil.”

Both were good for their faiths. For those who are anti-Christian or anti-Muslim or who foolishly believe that one religion is better than another religion, or that one religious figure is less good than another religious figure, of course people will say nasty things.

“Jesus never said to kill anyone. Once again.”

That’s not true. We already covered that ground. His words were used directly by his followers to commit murder of infidels and heathens. “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27) It makes no different if it was a parable. His meaning was clear.

“Charles Manson is completely identical to Muhammad. A murderer who claimed to be a holy figure.”

There is no comparison here. You have gone off the rails. Muhammad was a prophet, a person who was God’s Messenger, an individual with a history of spreading Islam.

“God ordering people killed is a Jewish thing. Another inferjor religion.”

No, God ordering people killed is a religious thing done by its adherents in His name as commanded by Him. And Judaism is not observably superior or inferior, it simply is a religion.

“Only ONE of them being innocent under US law is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is a murderer, and that anyone who defends him is evil.”

No, context matters. You have to show proof in all of the cases. But US law is irrelevant here anyways.

“And in any event, the stupid link which you didn’t bother to read didn’t refute any of their citations.”

The authors from the source I provided refuted wikislam, which is bunk.

“All decent people simply realize what a shitty religion it is, and how shitty all of its followers are, once they look into it.”

Actually, a number of decent people realize that religion is personal, and cannot be labeled superior or inferior since it is a matter of faith. You lose.

“The only people who think Islam is good are people who really know nothing about it, or who hate western civilization and are favor of everything that is bad for it. Both of these apply to you.”

"I have come to the conclusion that passing the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes."

When groups of people had their liberties utterly denied to them, the Civil Rights Acts were the proper solution.

"When whites become a minority, this country is finished."

You have little faith in people. Seek God's counsel. John 7:24--"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

"Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races)."

Except you are other than forced to associate. You have the liberty to live among your own kind. Just do not expect some of your kind who live among you to be forced to discriminate merely because you say I must. In other words, if I lived in your neighborhood, and chose to rent my upper flat to a darkie, you have no right to intercede. Furthermore, freedom of association does not mean unfettered freedom of association. Freedom of association in our society has legalities behind it. Damn those southrons who had outright refused to adhere to the basic tenets as espoused in the Plessy case.

“Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide."

White genocide occurring in America? That is a myth.

Of course, you need be mindful the background of the English, the purveyors of Western Civilization. They were forged from a mish mash of Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Romans, Danes, and Normans. Was this "good" or "bad" diversity?

"NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites)."

You conveniently forget how different ethnic groups who came to America competed against one another and by hook and by crooks attempted to ensure that one another did not receive this "fair shake". Certainly, white people came together in their best interest to ensure non-whites would not be on their same level politically, economically, and socially--in that manner, the whites in their own groups could then vie for control of our institutions by way of an ethnic hierarchy--the English, the Germans, and the Irish on top, with the Slavs, Italians, and Poles on the bottom. So, certain groups were designated as having to go back.

"I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965″. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…"

"So you think it’s OK for Muhammad to murder people, because he says it’s God’s will."

If you want to condemn him for alleging murdering innocent people, then you are going to have to be consistent by condemning any and all religions who have taken on this role.

"I think it was OK for Charles Manson to order the murder of Sharon Tate, because he claimed to be God."

This situation is a red herring. It is irrelevant. We are not talking about a mentally ill person who was clearly demented, we are talking about how all religions have been used by their adherents to justify taking a person's life for various reasons. Again, blasphemy in

"He was good, while Muhammad was evil."

Both were good for their faiths. For those who are anti-Christian or anti-Muslim or who foolishly believe that one religion is better than another religion, or that one religious figure is less good than another religious figure, of course people will say nasty things.

"Jesus never said to kill anyone. Once again."

That's not true. We already covered that ground. His words were used directly by his followers to commit murder of infidels and heathens. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27) It makes no different if it was a parable. His meaning was clear.

"Charles Manson is completely identical to Muhammad. A murderer who claimed to be a holy figure."

There is no comparison here. You have gone off the rails. Muhammad was a prophet, a person who was God's Messenger, an individual with a history of spreading Islam.

"God ordering people killed is a Jewish thing. Another inferjor religion."

No, God ordering people killed is a religious thing done by its adherents in His name as commanded by Him. And Judaism is not observably superior or inferior, it simply is a religion.

"Only ONE of them being innocent under US law is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is a murderer, and that anyone who defends him is evil."

No, context matters. You have to show proof in all of the cases. But US law is irrelevant here anyways.

"And in any event, the stupid link which you didn’t bother to read didn’t refute any of their citations."

The authors from the source I provided refuted wikislam, which is bunk.

"All decent people simply realize what a shitty religion it is, and how shitty all of its followers are, once they look into it."

Actually, a number of decent people realize that religion is personal, and cannot be labeled superior or inferior since it is a matter of faith. You lose.

"The only people who think Islam is good are people who really know nothing about it, or who hate western civilization and are favor of everything that is bad for it. Both of these apply to you."

Why are you mad, bro?

Are you done here?

“I have come to the conclusion that passing the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes.”

When groups of people had their liberties utterly denied to them, the Civil Rights Acts were the proper solution.

“When whites become a minority, this country is finished.”

You have little faith in people. Seek God’s counsel. John 7:24–”Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

“Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races).”

Except you are other than forced to associate. You have the liberty to live among your own kind. Just do not expect some of your kind who live among you to be forced to discriminate merely because you say I must. In other words, if I lived in your neighborhood, and chose to rent my upper flat to a darkie, you have no right to intercede. Furthermore, freedom of association does not mean unfettered freedom of association. Freedom of association in our society has legalities behind it. Damn those southrons who had outright refused to adhere to the basic tenets as espoused in the Plessy case.

“Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide.”

White genocide occurring in America? That is a myth.

Of course, you need be mindful the background of the English, the purveyors of Western Civilization. They were forged from a mish mash of Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Romans, Danes, and Normans. Was this “good” or “bad” diversity?

“NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites).”

You conveniently forget how different ethnic groups who came to America competed against one another and by hook and by crooks attempted to ensure that one another did not receive this “fair shake”. Certainly, white people came together in their best interest to ensure non-whites would not be on their same level politically, economically, and socially–in that manner, the whites in their own groups could then vie for control of our institutions by way of an ethnic hierarchy–the English, the Germans, and the Irish on top, with the Slavs, Italians, and Poles on the bottom. So, certain groups were designated as having to go back.

“I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965″. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…”